Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill (by Order),

Croydon Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill (by Order),

Southern Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Mr. LANSBURY: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will state the number of

Rank.
Salary.
Pension.





£
£
s.
d.


Regional Director
…
…
975
1,040
0
0


Regional Director
…
…
900
180
0
0


Regional Director
…
…
875
1,000
0
0


Regional Director
…
…
875
285
0
0


Deputy Commissioner of Medical Services
…
…
875
547
0
0


Deputy Commissioner of Medical Services
…
…
865
800
0
0


Deputy Commissioner of Medical Services
…
…
875
600
0
0


Deputy Commissioner of Medical Services
…
…
1,020
510
0
0


Deputy Commissioner of Medical Services
…
…
850
600
0
0


Deputy Commissioner of Medical Services
…
…
850
600
0
0


Deputy Commissioner of Medical Services
…
…
850
50
0
0


Deputy Commissioner of Medical Services
…
…
945
80
7
6


Deputy Commissioner of Medical Services
…
…
1,020
109
10
0


Deputy Commissioner of Medical Services
…
…
850
400
0
0


Deputy Commissioner of Medical Services
…
…
925
600
0
0


Deputy Commissioner of Medical Services
…
…
875
200
0
0


Assistant Commissioner of Medical Services
…
…
865
800
0
0

persons in the employ of his Department whose salaries range from £500 to £1,000 a year and who, in addition to their salaries, are in receipt of pensions from public funds, and the amount of such pensions; if he will inform the House the nature of the duties that these officials perform; and whether it is possible to substitute for them ex-service officers at present unemployed?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Frederick Roberts): As the answer is rather long, and involving a number of figures, I will circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I may say that the number of officers in question is 31, of whom 21 are associated with the medical services of the Ministry. Of the other officials concerned, one regional director is terminating his engagement on the abolition of his region, and the progress of the re-arrangement which I have in contemplation will further reduce the list.

The following are the details promised:

As far as I am aware, the following is a complete list of persons in the employ of the Ministry with salaries of £500 to £1,000 a year who are also in receipt of pensions, other than purely disability pensions, from public funds. The nature of their duties is indicated in the title of their posts, all but nine of them being medical officers. The number of these officers is being steadily reduced so far as is consistent with the requirements of my Department for officers experienced in pensions administration.

Rank.
Salary.
Pension.



£
£
s.
d.


Hospital Superintendent
800
396
0
0


Hospital Superintendent
600
600
0
0


Hospital Superintendent
800
540
0
0


Hospital Superintendent
1,000
396
0
0


Hospital Superintendent
900
600
0
0


Hospital Superintendent
800
800
0
0


Senior Medical Officer
700
42
0
0


Senior Medical Officer
700
109
10
0


Pathologist
600
600
0
0


Temporary Official in charge of Medical Appliances and Artificial Limbs Section.
510
324
0
0


Temporary Official in charge of Medical Stores
558
558
0
0


Regional Awards Officer
727
175
0
0


Navy Awards Officer
550
210
0
0


Chief Area Officer
536
85
16
0

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 19.
asked the Minister of Pensions what terms have been offered to the men under notice of discharge from the Pensions Ministry in Scotland; whether they have been offered alternative employment in London; whether, if so, this offer has been accompanied by any promise of continuity of employment; whether any grant has been promised towards the cost of removal to London; and what is the average present wage of the men in question?

Mr. ROBERTS: The temporary clerks referred to have been given two months' notice of the termination of their appointment. No definite offer of alternative employment in London has been made, but to enable the question to be properly considered the men affected have been asked whether they are desirous of transfer of 20 of them have intimated a desire for transfer. Every effort will be made to meet their wishes, preference being given to efficient disabled men. Having regard to the fall in the volume of work in the Ministry, it is not possible to give any promise of continuity of employment. The average wage is approximately 60s. a week.

Captain BENN: Does the hon. Gentleman expect these men to move to London on a wage of 60s. per week without the Department making any provision for the transfer?

Mr. ROBERTS: We do not expect that, and every care will be exercised if a transfer takes place.

Captain BENN: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the question of making a transfer allowance?

Mr. ROBERTS: No, Sir. I did not say that. I said that every care would be exercised.

Captain BENN: That is not the same thing.

Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this question in view of the fact that it is obviously impossible for a man getting 60s. a week to transfer his wife and children to London?

Mr. ROBERTS: I shall be very glad to go into this matter, and consider it sympathetically, if possible.

MINOR GRADES (SICK PAY).

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 95.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is arranging for all temporary messengers and minor grades of the Civil Service to be eligible for sick pay?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. Graham): This question is now under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

DISABLED MEN (RE-EXAMINATION).

Mr. MURRAY: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will take steps to provide an opportunity for re-examination of disabled men whose disablement was
assessed as under 20 per cent., and on that basis granted final awards, and who are prepared to submit medical testimony that this disability continues or has become progressively worse?

Mr. ROBERTS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Rugby on the 14th February, of which I am sending him a copy.

MEDICAL BOARDS.

Mr. AYLES: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will give instruction that, when medical boards are held, all answers to questions which are entered upon the proceedings shall be read over to the officer or man concerned, and their correctness admitted before the proceedings are signed?

Mr. ROBERTS: I understand that it is the general practice for medical boards to read over the note of the officer's or man's own statement of his condition, and to ask him if he wishes to add anything to it. I am arranging for the issue of an instruction to ensure that this procedure shall obtain in all cases.

FINAL AWARDS (APPEALS).

Mr. AYLES: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider the desirability of amending the law relating to the right of appeal against final awards in such a way as to allow such appeal to be brought at any time by a man who can produce medical evidence to show that the disability on account of which he had been given a final award had not ceased or had recurred?

Mr. ROBERTS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Rugby on the 14th February, of which I am sending him a copy.

TREATMENT.

Mr. AYLES: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will give instructions that all medical officers of the Ministry who are on the list for visiting men who have made application for treatment shall have power to call upon men for whom they may have ordered treatment to visit them again at subsequent dates, without fresh application on the part of the patient, in order that the effect of the treatment may be ascertained and recorded?

Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think my hon. Friend's suggestion could be adopted with advantage. Where treatment is being given, on the report of an examining medical officer, at a Ministry hospital or clinic, such treatment is continued for so long as the medical officer in charge may consider necessary without fresh application on the part of the man.

TRAVELLING EXPENSES (RELATIVES AND FRIENDS).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will authorise the payment of the travelling expenses of any relative, friend, or other person who, in the opinion of the local Pensions Committee, it is desirable should accompany a pensioner, laying his case before the Appeals Tribunal in order that poverty shall be no bar to an appellant's claim being adequately presented?

Mr. ROBERTS: I have no authority to authorise payment of the expenses in question. I may, however, remind the hon. Member that, under Regulation 33 of the Lord Chancellor's Regulations governing the procedure of the Appeal Tribunals, a tribunal is allowed to grant travelling and subsistence allowance to the next-of-kin or other near relative of an appellant who is mentally incapable, and to any person accompanying an appellant who is certified in the prescribed manner to be unfit to travel alone.

Mr. W. THORNE: In the case of a pensioner who is in hospital at some distance from his home, is any effort being made to transfer him to a hospital nearer to his home?

Mr. ROBERTS: I fail to see that that is a supplementary question arising out of the original question, but if my hon. Friend will put it on the Paper, I will give him every possible information.

PRE-WAR DEPENDANTS (CROFTERS AND SMALL LANDHOLDERS).

Mr. F. MARTIN: 10.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will issue to officials dealing with applications for pre-war dependants' pensions received from crofters and small landholders instructions that the income deemed to accrue from the occupancy of a croft or small holding shall in no case be greater in amount
than the rent paid in respect of such croft or small holding, thus bringing the practice of his Department into conformity with the method of assessment to Income Tax applicable to occupiers of agricultural land?

Mr. ROBERTS: I have no authority to accept this suggestion. The point arises in connection with the award of pension on the ground of pecuniary need when the actual income accruing from the property must necessarily be taken into account. My officers have instructions which should ensure a fair assessment in this type of case, but I shall, of course, be glad to look into the facts of any particular case the hon. Member may bring to my notice.

BLIND PENSIONERS.

Mr. GILBERT: 15.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of blind pensioners pensioned by his Department; what is the average pension received by such pensioner; whether, if such pensioner is the inhabitant of a home or hospital for the blind, any deduction is made from the pension; and, if so, what amount?

Mr. ROBERTS: There are 1,550 totally blinded officers and men, all of whom are receiving pension from my Department at the maximum rate. The amount paid in such case varies according to rank and family, an unmarried private receiving pension at the rate of 40s. a week. Allowances for wives and children of married men are additional. These pensioners are cared for by St. Dunstans (or in Scotland by Newington House) and when they are in either of these institutions they receive allowances at the maximum rate of pension without any deduction.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Mr. BECKER: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many of the men who were discharged from the headquarters of the Ministry from 1st July to 31st December, 1923, were temporary ex-service men; and will he agree to find vacancies for the temporary ex-service men still remaining on the basis of the Lytton Committee Report?

Mr. ROBERTS: No efficient ex-service men were discharged from headquarters offices (including Pension Issue Office) during the period in question; in fact, during that time the male staff in the offices mentioned was increased by 197, whilst the female staff was reduced by 1,008. Every effort will be made to find openings for efficient men who become redundant on their present work, but it will not be possible to retain men for whom there is no work.

Mr. GILBERT: 16.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of local pension committees in the county of London; how many officials are employed at same, and the approximate annual cost for 1922; and whether any or all of such officials are ex-service men?

Mr. ROBERTS: There is one war pensions committee for each of the 15 war pension areas in the county of London. The total area office staff (excluding clinic and medical staff) now numbers 497, of whom 397 are males, all ex-service men. The female staff, six of whom are ex-service women, is composed of clerks employed in widows' and dependants' sections, typists and cleaners. The cost of the committees for 1922 was £100,092. The cost for 1923 following on the reorganisation was substantially less.

TRADE FACILITIES ACT SCHEMES.

Major COHEN: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the Government's intention to insist that at least 75 per cent. of the unskilled labour employed in schemes set up under the Trade Facilities Act shall be ex-service men; and whether this is in fact now being done?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): It is impracticable to require the promoter of a loan seeking a guarantee under the Act to obtain from his contractors, before he is in a position to select them or to place an order with them, an undertaking that in executing the order they and their sub-contractors will employ a certain percentage of ex-service men. But the Advisory Committee in every case in which they recommend a guarantee ask the company proposing to raise the money to do everything in their power to secure that wherever practicable 75 per cent. of the men employed on the work to be carried out for them with the proceeds of the loan shall be ex-service men. The
great majority of men concerned in Trade Facility Acts schemes are naturally not unskilled men, but skilled men.

Captain BERKELEY: Will that also apply to loans to the Dominions and for the Sudan?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise here.

Mr. SNOWDEN: If the hon. Member could ensure that it will be possible to apply such a regulation, we would consider it.

WRITING ASSISTANTS.

Sir F. HALL: 97.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether girls of 16 to 17 years of age are still being appointed as writing assistants for purely routine work in the Civil Service at a wage of about £2 6s. per week; and whether, seeing that work of this description could be carried out in many cases by disabled ex-service men, he will forthwith have this matter inquired into with a view to stopping the discharge of competent ex-service men who, in a considerable number of instances, are receiving notice to terminate positions which they have held to the satisfaction of their superior officers for periods ranging from three to five years?

Mr. GRAHAM: The initial inclusive rates of pay of writing assistants in London appointed from open competition is not as stated in the question, but is as follows:

31s. 6d. at age 16,
35s. at 17, and
38s. 6d. at age 18 or over.

With the increase in Civil Service bonus on the 1st March, these rates will become 32s. 5d., 36s. and 39s. 7d. respectively. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer to the answer which I gave on the 25th February to the hon. Member for Acton and the hon. and gallant Member for Lewisham East, of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy.

Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman take every possible step to see that the services of these men are utilised instead of bringing in new recruits to do work that these men are capable of carrying out, especially disabled ex-service men?

Mr. GRAHAM: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that that is the policy of the Government in the matter. But as regards the writing assistants, I would say that they are engaged on duty to which it would be quite impossible in many cases to put ex-service men.

Sir F. HALL: Where ex-service men are capable of carrying out this routine work, will the hon. Gentleman give his sympathetic consideration to the matter?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes.

Major COHEN: When will the Southborough Committee, which is inquiring into all these questions, be likely to report?

Mr. GRAHAM: We have that under consideration, and I hope to be able to make a definite statement at a very early date.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the hon. Gentleman give a pledge that no further dismissals of ex-service men will take place until after the Southborough Committee have reported?

Mr. GRAHAM: It would be very difficult to give a pledge of that kind, because the work of many Departments is either terminating or being largely reduced at the present time. We do everything in our power to give preference to disabled ex-service men. Beyond that I could not go.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY ACTION CLAIM (MR. E. HENDERSON).

Mr. HARDIE: 20.
asked the Minister of Pension if he can explain the delay in dealing with the reparation claim made by Mr. E. Henderson, No. S/3731/P2, 14, Robb Street, Springburn, Glasgow?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I have been asked to reply; and as the answer is rather long, I suggest that I should be permitted to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. HARDIE: How can the Parliamentary Secretary explain the delay of nine or ten months in a case like this?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I think that when my hon. Friend reads my reply he will see that the delay was as much the fault of the man as of the Department.

Following is the answer:

The proper forms were sent by the Reparation Claims Department to Mr. Henderson care of the British Seafarers' Union, the only address known to the Department, on 8th June, 1920. The forms were not returned, and despite a letter of reminder sent to him on 28th September, 1922, nothing was heard from Mr. Henderson until a letter was received from him on 11th August, 1923. In these circumstances the claim falls into the belated category, as to which it is not possible to make any definite statement pending the presentation of the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON TRAFFIC (NIGHT SIGNALS).

Captain Viscount CURZON: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the great difficulty under certain conditions at night in London experienced by drivers of vehicles of seeing the traffic signals made by police officers on point duty; that in many of the great cities the police officers employed on such duty are equipped with white overalls; and will he, in view of these facts, consider the possibility of providing such overalls for officers employed on point duty at important road junctions where the street lighting is inefficient?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): White gloves are provided, but white overalls are not considered suitable under the conditions which prevail in London.

Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Member aware that in several of our great cities in the provinces white overalls have been adopted; and with regard to white gloves, only one pair is issued, and very often they are not worn?

Mr. DAVIES: Safety on the road does not depend on the colour of the officers' uniform, but very often on the speed of the motor.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.

INTIMIDATION AND VIOLENCE.

Sir F. HALL: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department
whether he will consider as to the introduction of legislation to prevent the intimidation and violence at present practised under cover of the Trades Disputes Act towards those desiring to work, by the introduction of undesirable elements outside the trade unions concerned in such circumstances as obtained during the railway strike?

Mr. DAVIES: It is the duty of the police under the existing law to prevent violence and intimidation, and I am not aware of any necessity for legislation.

Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is an enormous amount of violence in some of these strikes, and will he take steps to strengthen the hands of the police in order that they may deal with those people who try to preclude others from obtaining the usual amount of work they desire?

Mr. HAYES: Is it not a fact that the law in respect of the protection of both employers and employés is quite strong enough for the police to take effective action in these disputes?

STRIKES AND LOCK-OUTS.

Sir ROBERT LYNN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the heavy losses caused during the last five years by industrial disputes, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation making strikes and lock-outs illegal until each dispute has been investigated by an industrial court?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 14th February to questions on this subject, to which I have nothing to add.

PEACEFUL PICKETING.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he contemplates any legislation to deal with the abuse of peaceful picketing?

Mr. DAVIES: I have been asked to reply. I am not aware of any necessity for legislation.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is there no need for legislation when the mail services of the country are interrupted?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

ARSON (CONVICTIONS).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether James Bernard Stolerman, Joseph Englestein, and Julius Brust, who were convicted of arson on 28th September, 1923, are foreigners; and, if so, whether they will be deported?

Mr. DAVIES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. They were all recommended for deportation at the end of the various terms of penal servitude to which they were sentenced.

NATURALISATION.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will state what is the present attitude of the Government to naturalisation; whether he is aware that every obstacle is placed in the way of foreign nationals domiciled in this country getting certificates of naturalisation; and what period of time from the date of application is required before such certificate is granted to applicants long domiciled in this country and bearing good characters.

Mr. DAVIES: The attitude of the Government is favourable to the grant of naturalisation to such applicants as satisfy them that British nationality may properly be conferred on them. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative, and the answer to the last depends on the circumstances of every application.

Mr. HARRIS: Are there any definite regulations as to what is a reasonable period—two, three, four or five years? At present there seems to be no system or length of time laid down.

Oral Answers to Questions — SALE OF TOBACCO (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. BECKER: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of prosecutions which were made, during the last annual period, of persons summoned for selling tobacco illegally between the hours of 8 p.m. and 12 o'clock midnight?

Mr. DAVIES: I regret that this information is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give information showing the total number of persons killed and the total number injured by industrial accidents in factories, mines, etc., during 1923?

Mr. DAVIES: It appears from information furnished by the several Departments concerned that the total number of persons reported as killed during 1923 by industrial accidents in factories, docks and other premises under the Factory Acts, mines, quarries and in the railway service, was 2,488. The number reported as injured by accidents on premises under the Factory Acts was 124,733. The figures as to non-fatal accidents in the other industries mentioned are not yet available.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXI-CABS.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the same fares for taxi-cabs are charged as when the price of petroleum was 4s. 6d. a gallon, although it has now been reduced to under 2s. a gallon, and that the price of tyres has fallen very considerably; and if he will consider the introduction of a cheaper form of taxi-cab, such as a Ford or Citroen, which could be put on the streets at a cheaper rate?

Mr. DAVIES: Yes, Sir, but I am advised that the price of petrol and the cost of tyres are not the main factors to be taken into consideration. A certain number of Citroen cabs have been licensed, but they charge the ordinary fares.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that taxicab fares in London are more expensive than in any other capital in Europe? [HON. MEMBERS: No.]

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE AND PRISON SERVICES (APPEALS).

Mr. HAYES: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home
Department whether he proposes to establish or to consider the establishment of Appeal Tribunals, disciplinary, for the police and prison services?

Mr. DAVIES: So far as prison officers are concerned, there is already provision for a direct appeal to the Secretary of State, and I know of no reason for any change. The question, so far as the police services are concerned, is still under consideration.

Mr. HAYES: Does the hon. Gentleman's Department intend to put into operation the recommendations made in the Desborough Report four or five years ago, and is not an independent tribunal what the Desborough Committee aimed at, and not an appeal to the Home Secretary himself?

Mr. DAVIES: I should require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS (OBSERVATION CASES).

Mr. STRANGER: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that there are in prisons many inmates mentally and medically unfit confined in observation cells, but in charge only of the ordinary disciplinary officer; and whether, in future, he will arrange to have those men placed in charge of a medical prison orderly instead of a disciplinary officer?

Mr. DAVIES: The number of hospital officers at present available does not admit of this being done in every case, but the Prison Commissioners are making the best arrangements possible within the resources at their disposal, and those resources are being steadily improved.

Mr. STRANGER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in one of the London prisons at the present time there are 27 of these observation cases, in charge of a man who has to walk over 20 miles in the course of the night?

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR DRIVERS' LICENCES.

Mr. MARLEY: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the increasing traffic difficulties and increase of street
accidents, any steps can be taken to alter the existing regulations in regard to the more or less indiscriminate issue without test of licences to drivers of motors and motor cycles?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I have been asked to answer this question. The whole question has been most carefully investigated by the Departmental Committee, and, while they were unable to recommend the institution of tests for the drivers of motor vehicles, they made certain suggestions for the modification of the existing law and regulations on the subject. I am awaiting a suitable opportunity to introduce a Bill giving effect to these, among other, recommendations of the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

PROBATIONERS.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, if prima facie evidence of injustice to a police probationer be produced, there is any court to which he may appeal, or if there is any intention to set up such a court?

Mr. DAVIES: No, Sir. Probation implies that the services of the probationer may be dispensed with if he is not considered likely to make a good constable. This is a question which must rest on the judgment of his superior officers, and there can be no question of an appeal.

Mr. BROWN: Are we to understand that, although evidence of gross injustice can be produced, there is no possibility of appeal against a superior officer?

Mr. HAYES: Is not this a case in point in support of the arguments for an appeal tribunal?

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Sir JOHN PENNEFATHER: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that, under the Police Pensions Act of 1921, the widows of policemen with long service pensioned off before 1st September, 1918, get no pensions although the widows of policemen with short service pensioned off since that date are entitled to pensions; that
this enactment was contrary to a decision of the Standing Committee and that any provision which may be made for widows with young children would not apply to these elderly widows; and will he take action to place the widows of all police pensioners on the same footing regardless of the date of retirement and thus remove an injustice.

Mr. DAVIES: The present law is the decision of Parliament, and I cannot hold out any hope of action on the lines suggested in the last part of the question.

Mr. HAYES: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to introduce amending legislation, in view of the fact that, during the life of the Coalition Government, it was the House of Lords that turned down the Measure which was passed by this House? As there have been some changes, if only slight, in the House of Lords, might it not have a better chance next time?

Mr. DAVIES: I will convey that to my right hon. Friend.

Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Members on this side of the House have always pressed for consideration of the claims of widows of police pensioners who left before the 1st September, 1918, and will he see whether something can be done in that matter?

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: Will they come under the Pre-War Pensions (Increase) Act?

WEATHER PROTECTION.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the question of providing wind screens or sentry-boxes in very exposed and windswept beats for Metropolitan policemen?

Mr. DAVIES: I am afraid the suggestion could not be adopted without interfering with the efficient discharge of the constable's duties. It is essential that a constable should be in the open, where he can see and hear what is going on around him.

Sir B. FALLE: Could not a windscreen be made of glass?

Mr. DAVIES: That would prevent him from hearing.

Oral Answers to Questions — STREET ACCIDENTS.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a person meeting with an accident on the public streets of the City is compelled to remain, if seriously hurt, where the accident occurred, irrespective as to whether the accident occurred convenient to an hospital or otherwise, until the arrival of an official ambulance; and is he prepared to examine the regulations of the London authorities with a view to a betterment of regulations dealing with street accidents?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I have been asked to answer this question. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health understands that the ambulance arrangements of the Metropolis are at present under examination by a Committee appointed by King Edward's Hospital Fund for London, and, when that Committee has reported, he will be in a better position to say what, if any, further action can be taken on this subject.

Sir F. HALL: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Committee is likely to report?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have no information as to that.

Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Certainly.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Would it not be far better if any passing motor car could be allowed to take an injured person to hospital, than that he should be left lying on the pavement, as is now the case?

Mr. HENDERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only a week ago to-day, at the London County Hall, a man was knocked down and seriously injured, and that he lay on the sidewalk for 15 or 20 minutes, in close proximity to St. Thomas's Hospital; and does not the hon. Gentleman think that something ought to be done to have this state of things remedied?

Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend will be glad to consider the Report when he has received it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (FORMS).

Mr. MACPHERSON: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is proposed to print all forms in connection with future Parliamentary elections in bulk and to circulate these skeleton forms to returning officers in such numbers as they may require, with space left for the insertion of local matter by clerical labour; and whether he is aware that the view of returning officers is that no economy would be effected by this innovation and that local printers are thus deprived of work for which they are entitled to compete?

Mr. DAVIES: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave on this subject on the 14th instant to questions by the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Murrell), Harborough (Mr. Black), and Montrose Burghs (Mr. Sturrock).

Oral Answers to Questions — OMNIBUSES, LONDON.

Sir F. HALL: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the event of the Government being satisfied that a number of omnibuses in excess of general requirements is likely to be placed on the London streets, he will institute the necessary legislation to enable such licences to be refused?

Mr. GOSLING: I have been asked to answer this question. Powers of the nature Suggested in the hon. and gallant Member's question are under consideration in connection with the London Traffic Bill which it is proposed to present to the House.

Sir F. HALL: When?

Mr. GOSLING: As soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON SERVICE (PAY).

Mr. HAYES: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department the date on which it is proposed to put into operation the Report on pay, etc., of the prison service?

Mr. DAVIES: It is intended that effect should be given to the recommendations
of the Committee as from 1st October last. The delay in promulgating the decisions has been due to certain representations made by the subordinate staff.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

ADMISSION TO LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. HANNON: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Press that the Russian Soviet Government has expressed its unwillingness to apply for admission to the League of Nations, to which it refers as the imperialistic great Powers' weapon for oppressing small peoples; and whether, should this attitude be maintained by the Soviet representatives shortly to arrive in London, the negotiations between the Soviet Government and His Majesty's Government will continue?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government cannot, however, act on the principle that they can have dealings only with Governments represented on or favourable to the League of Nations.

Mr. HANNON: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to make any representations to the Russian Government?

Mr. PONSONBY: I have nothing to add.

CIVIL WAR (BRITISH INTERVENTION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the general lack of information with regard to the objects, extent, and cost of the British intervention in the civil war in Russia following the revolution, even taking into consideration the contents of Command Paper No. 772, of 1920, he will now reconsider the holding of an inquiry into the whole subject?

Mr. CLYNES: I see no object in such an inquiry as the hon. and gallant Member suggests, and I think it will be best to await the forthcoming negotiations with the Russian representatives.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the inquiries that took place in the Dardanelles
operations and in the Mesopotamia scandals, and does he not think this is a very much greater thing than either of those two?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, I am aware of that, but I can add nothing to this reply.

ANTI-BRITISH PROPAGANDA.

Sir GRATTAN DOYLE: 64.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has information about propaganda against the British Empire in Afghanistan, India, Persia, and other countries carried on by the Soviet Government of Russia; and if he has received any assurance from the Russian Government that such hostile action shall now cease?

Mr. PONSONBY: His Majesty's Government have ample information on the political conditions in the countries named; the answer to the second part of the question is contained in the recent exchange of notes with the Soviet Government which has been published.

Sir G. DOYLE: Was any pledge given on behalf of the Soviet Government that their propaganda will cease?

Mr. PONSONBY: The matter is to be discussed in conference.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will it cease in the meantime?

OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS (COMMISSION).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 90.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now make any statement as to the personnel, both on the British and on the Russian side, of the Commission which is to be set up to consider outstanding problems connected with the recognition of the Soviet Republican Government?

Mr. PONSONBY: The British delegation will consist of officials of the Foreign Office, Treasury, Board of Trade and Department of Overseas Trade, acting under the direction of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and that of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I have not yet been informed of the composition of the Soviet delegation.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state when the terms of reference will be published and when the Commission will be put into effect?

Mr. PONSONBY: I require notice of that question.

Mr. WALLHEAD: On this Commission will there be any representatives of the Federation of British Industries?

Mr. PONSONBY: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SALARIES).

Mr. McENTEE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to make such arrangements as may be necessary to enable the salaries of Members of Parliament to commence to accrue from the date of their election?

Mr. CLYNES: I would refer—

Mr. McENTEE: May I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that, owing to the plans which are being formulated round me for the defeat of the Government, we cannot hear a word that is being said.

Mr. CLYNES: I would refer my hon. Friend to the ruling given by the late Speaker on the 26th February, 1917, of which I am sending him a copy. It has been held that Members cannot begin their duties till they have taken the Oath, but when any considerable period elapses between an election and the first meeting of Parliament, there may be substantial injustice done. The matter can be discussed on the appropriate Vote or on the Appropriation Bill.

Mr. McENTEE: In view of the fact that it is becoming the practice to-day for Members of Parliament to commence their duties from the day of their election, would it not be well to reconsider a decision that was probably applicable to those days but is not applicable to-day?

Mr. PRINGLE: In view of the fact that the ruling given by the late Speaker was given in view of conditions applying in Ireland when the Sinn Fein Members decided not to come here at all, will that rule not now be abrogated as the conditions that called it forth do not exist?

Mr. W. THORNE: I should like to ask your ruling, Sir, on the matter.

Mr. SEXTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this alleged salary is largely expended in railway fares and hotel expenses?

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is there not one Member of the House who was lately interned in Ireland and has not taken the Oath, and would not this apply to him?

Mr. R. MURRAY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when this Measure was first passed the then Chancellor of the Exchequer gave, a ruling that the salaries should be paid immediately the return of the election was indicated?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Would or would it not be possible for the returning officer to administer the Oath at the time of acceptance?

Mr. BECKER: In view of this discussion, will the right hon. Gentleman consider cancelling the salaries of Members of Parliament altogether?

Mr. CLYNES: In reply to these numerous questions, I need say only two things. One is that the closing part of my answer shows clearly that an opportunity will hereafter arise for discussing the whole question. The second is that no one can regard the money that is paid as a salary, but as part payment towards expenses.

Mr. PRINGLE: As this arises on a ruling of your predecessor, Sir, may I ask whether you will reconsider that ruling, in view of the altered conditions?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am quite prepared, as far as it concerns me, to do so, but no doubt it is also partly a matter for the Treasury. As far as I am concerned, I am perfectly ready to reconsider the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (CONTRACTS).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have yet considered how far they are going to continue the restrictions of their predecessors in refusing to allow local authorities to purchase any materials required for unemployment works from abroad when the home supplies are controlled by rings and combines, and the
prices demanded are 10 per cent. and over higher than those ruling in the open market?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have been asked to answer this question. My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member by the Leader of the House on the 19th February, but he hopes that it will be possible to announce the decision of the Government at an early date.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Prime Minister? The delay is causing considerable expense to local authorities. Could they expedite a decision?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The matter was only recently raised in the House of Commons. It has been under consideration since.

Colonel ASHLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in considering this matter, that there is not much good using public money to relieve unemployment in this country if a great proportion of the money is to go abroad?

GRAVESEND-TILBURY TUNNEL.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have had time to consider the immediate construction of the Lower Thames tunnel between Gravesend and Tilbury, and the construction of the new road from Kingston-on-Thames to Tilbury, linking up to the main roads to the north, midland, and eastern counties, as such works will increase transport facilities and find employment for a large number of men?

Mr. GOSLING: I have been asked to answer this question. Instructions have already been given to an eminent engineer for the preparation of plans and reports upon the suggested Gravesend-Tilbury Tunnel, for the consideration of my Department. Certain surveys and preliminary investigations have also been undertaken in connection with a north orbital road round London. Time is required for the study of these particulars before any decision can be reached.

Mr. SHORT: Can my right hon. Friend give us the name of this eminent engineer?

Mr. LORIMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the Channel tunnel being proceeded with?

Oral Answers to Questions — SECOND BALLOT.

Sir G. DOYLE: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the principle that the Government of the day should be a reflex of the will of the majority of the electors voting, he will state when he proposes to bring in a Bill establishing the second ballot, or, failing its introduction by the Government, to give facilities for a private Member's Bill on the subject?

Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir. I am not in a position to make any statement as regards the first part of the question. As regards the second part, the Government cannot undertake to give facilities to any Private Bill at this stage of the Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce at an early date a Bill providing for a superannuation scheme for teachers in England and Wales; and, if so, if it is proposed that the Bill shall follow the main lines of the recommendation made in the Report of the Emmott Committee?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): I can only reply to this question in the same sense as the answer given to a similar question on Tuesday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, namely, that the matter is still under consideration by the Government.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this matter is a pressing one, because the arrangement under which the superannuation allowance is at present being paid expires very shortly?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I am aware of the importance of the question, but there are a great many considerations.

TEACHERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE).

Mr. P. HARRIS: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that some education authorities are requiring supply teachers to pay Unemployment Insurance; and
whether, if they make such contributions, they will be entitled to draw unemployment benefit?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Shaw): I have been asked to reply. Supply teachers in public elementary schools must be insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts unless their employment is of sufficient duration to bring it within the category of "recognised service" for the purposes of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1918 and 1922. The conditions for the receipt of benefit are the same for supply teachers as for other insured persons; and if a claim to benefit is made during a school holiday the question would arise whether the teacher is discharged, and, therefore, unemployed or is on vacation. In accordance with the ordinary procedure this question would be decided in any particular case by the Insurance Officer, Court of Referees and the Umpire.

DRAMATIC PERFORMANCES.

Mr. P. HARRIS: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider introducing a short Bill amending the Education Act, 1918, to enable the continuance of visits of school children to Shakespeare performances as part of the education syllabus?

Mr. TREVELYAN: There is no occasion for legislation. In the case of Rex v. Lyon it was held that the Code of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools did not authorise the hire of a theatre for the purpose of representing stage plays to children attending public elementary schools. Since then the Code has been altered so as to enable occasional visits to theatrical performances during school hours to be treated as attendances at a public elementary school.

Mr. HARRIS: Are we to understand that educational authorities can safely take children to such places without fear of surcharge?

Mr. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir. The point is that they are not allowed to hire a theatre for that purpose, but they may take children as part of the school course.

ACTING-TEACHERS' CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION.

Mr. WHITELEY: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether
he is aware of the hardship that will be suffered by uncertificated teachers by the decision to discontinue the acting-teachers' certificate examination after this year; and whether it is the intention of his Department to reconsider such decision?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I may refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on the 14th February last to the hon. Members for Thornbury (Mr. Rendall) and Wednesbury (Mr. Short).

LEAVING AGE.

Mr. WHITELEY: 70.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that scholars in central schools who reach the age of 16 before the completion of the educational year have to leave owing to the fact that the Government grant ceases on their attaining such age; and whether he is prepared to make arrangements for the grant to be continued until the educational year is complete, and thus allow these scholars the opportunity of receiving the benefit of the full year's work?

Mr. TREVELYAN: The action of the Board in this matter is governed by Section 26 of the Education Act, 1921, under which special circumstances have to be shown to justify the retention of scholars in public elementary schools beyond the end of the term in which they reach the age of 16. If the Board do approve an extension of the age, grant is payable in respect of the scholars concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPLOSION, SLADE GREEN.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government intends to grant a public inquiry into the disastrous explosion at Slade Green?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I have been asked to reply. This question will be favourably considered when the coroner's inquest has been completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR SEIZURE (R.M.S. "ADRIATIC").

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether his
attention has been drawn to the seizure of 186 cases of liquor on the White Star liner "Adriatic" by agents of the Treasury sent from Washington; whether the Anglo-American Treaty establishing the right of British ships to possess liquor stores which are properly sealed up has been signed and ratified; and whether he will make representations with regard to this case?

Mr. PONSONBY: With regard to the first part of the question we have no information, but inquiries are being made of His Majesty's Embassy at Washington. In reply to the second part of the question the Treaty has been signed and is awaiting ratification; the question of making representations to the United States Government will be considered on the receipt of an official report.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the hon. Member do his best to hasten the ratification of this agreement, in order to avoid any more of these unpleasant incidents?

Oral Answers to Questions — MACEDONIA.

Mr. LUMLEY: 58.
asked the Prime Minister if His Majesty's Government definitely repudiates the view that Macedonia is mainly Bulgarian and should receive autonomy?

Mr. CLYNES: The hon. Member can scarcely expect His Majesty's Government to answer questions like this which, while having but a most remote relation to British responsibilities at the moment, can only add to the disturbed state of Balkan politics and involve the Government in quarrels in a most gratuitous and reckless way.

Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Home Office is not the only Department of the Government in which disciplinary action is necessary?

Mr. CLYNES: The youngest Member in the House would, I think, realise that fact.

Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that a copy of this answer is sent to everyone of his colleagues?

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND VALUES (RATING AND TAXATION).

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce during the Session a Bill providing for the rating and taxation of land values?

Mr. CLYNES: I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this matter.

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases land rated on its agricultural value is being sold at thousands of pounds an acre, and does he not consider that that land should bear its fair share of taxation?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether any steps have been taken or are in immediate contemplation for modifying any post-War Allied agreements in addition to the reparation levy on German goods?

Mr. CLYNES: I cannot answer such vague questions. If the hon. Member will put specific inquiries and will state the particular inter-Allied agreement or agreements which he has in mind, I will endeavour to supply him with the information which he desires.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: 62.
also asked the Prime Minister the amount received by this country from Germany under the 26 per cent. reparation claims levy since its introduction till the date of its reduction to 5 per cent.; whether the reduction has been agreed to without any equivalent compensation; and whether he proposes to publish the negotiations with Germany on the matter?

Mr. SNOWDEN: From March, 1921, up to the end of December last, the receipts were approximately £18,000,000. In answer to the second part, I am not clear what the hon. Member means by equivalent compensation. We have obtained from Germany the maximum we think she is capable of performing at the present time, without
starting new inflation. As regards the third part, the outcome of the negotiations has been given by my hon. Friend, and details are published to-day in the Board of Trade Journal. There are no Papers I could lay.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is it a fact that these reparations are equivalent to about £90,000,000 a year, and that the Government have given up 21 per cent., and have not received any consideration in respect of that?

Mr. VIVIAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much of the £18,000,000 came here in the form of goods and how much came in the form of money? That might interest the hon. Member who puts the question.

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a Debate on the subject.

Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate to what extent he regards this levy as a charge upon the Germans, or a protective duty in favour of the British manufacturers?

Mr. SNOWDEN: It is very difficult to say what proportion of the duty is paid by the German exporter, the trader, or by the consumer.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Was any consideration received in respect of the 21 per cent. given up?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "consideration," but I would point out to him that we have been receiving nothing since November last. Under this proposal we do expect, at any rate, to receive about £150,000 a month.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the agreement which been come to with the Germans will be laid as a Paper, or is it to be published in the Gazette?

Mr. SNOWDEN: All the information that it is possible to give is published in the Board of Trade Journal to-day, which contains full information in regard to procedure, for the information of traders. There are no Papers we can lay.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: When a question was answered on Monday it was stated that an agreement
had been made with the Germans, and I want to know whether that agreement will be laid.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Arising out of the original question, was any attempt made by our Government, in return for the concession of giving over these duties, to get some concession for ourselves in order that our goods might go into Germany on better terms?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not know whether that matter was considered. In reply to the right hon. Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans), I may say that the terms are published in the Board of Trade Journal to-day, and I prefer that he should look at them.

Captain BENN: 88.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the whole amount under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act accrues to the British Treasury, or whether the sum is divided between the Allies according to the Spa percentages?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The whole amount has accrued to the British Exchequer and no sum has been paid over to the Allies.

Captain BENN: Are we due to divide it according to the agreement made at Spa with our Allies?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Up to January, 1923, we were entitled under an Allied Agreement to keep what we collected. The hon. and gallant Member knows that for the last two or three months the position with regard to reparation has been somewhat confused. We are keeping the proceeds of this duty and we propose to do so anyhow until there is some further general arrangement.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that this also applies to the 5 per cent.? Shall we retain the whole of that?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Certainly.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is this not accounted for in some way to the Reparation Commission, and, if so, in what way?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I understand that during the last 15 months there have been no adjustments made at all among the Allies by the Reparation Commission.

Captain BENN: If we collect reparations apart from our Allies, what becomes of our Agreement at Spa to divide the reparation according to percentages?

Mr. SOMERVILLE: May I take it then, that the £18,000,000 referred to in the previous answer has been paid into the Treasury?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Certainly. In answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Member the whole thing is in abeyance at the present time.

Mr. LAMBERT: Has the Reparation Commission therefore ceased to function?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Practically.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 89.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will ensure that the reduction in the rate of German reparation duty from 26 per cent. to 5 per cent. will cause a reduction in the price of goods to the consumer or will he allow the profit to go to the importer?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The goods are subject to the competition of British and of other foreign goods and I do not see what other guarantee could be given to the consumer as to prices. The new arrangement simply restores the position to what it was before 17th November last, in that no part of the levy is borne by the importer.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this concession will mean a loss of £5,500,000 a year to the Exchequer, and will it not hamper the recovery of those industries which are already much affected by German competition?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The difference will be between about £800,000 a month and £150,000 a month.

Mr. PENNY: 91.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Dominions were consulted before the new agreement was made between ourselves and the German Government reducing the 26 per cent. duty to 5 per cent.?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The answer is in the negative. The Act refers to goods imported into the United Kingdom. None of the Dominions has similar legislation in force.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is it not the case that the Dominions are
entitled to a percentage of what this country recovers as reparations? Has the right hon. Gentleman given that up without consulting the Dominions?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I wonder whether our predecessors, when they reduced the percentage from 50 to 26, took a precaution with regard to that.

Mr. PENNY: Will the Minister tell us whether the British representative on the Reparation Commission was consulted before the alteration was made?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That does not arise out of this question.

Mr. BECKER: Is this a Government attempt to bring in Free Trade?

Mr. PENNY: 92.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue immediately as a White Paper the new agreement in regard to the German Reparation (Recovery) Act?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The terms of the agreement have already been explained and details are published in the Board of Trade Journal to-day.

Mr. PENNY: 93.
asked the Chancellor of the Exhequer if he will state the estimated amount to be received by the new agreement of the German Reparation (Recovery) Act?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The monthly receipts may be estimated at £150,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AUXILIARY AIR FORCE BILL.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 72.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is in a position to state when the auxiliary Air Force Bill will be introduced?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Leach): The Bill will be introduced at an early date, which cannot at present be definitely fixed.

COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: 74.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the total number of commissioned officers borne on the active list of the Royal Air Force; how many of these
are held to be competent to fly and instantly available for flying; and how many carry out regular duties in the air?

Mr. LEACH: The answer to the first part of the question is 3,136. This includes 657 officers of stores, accountant, medical and other non-flying branches, and 160 ex-warrant officers of the Royal Naval Air Service. The answer to the second part of the question is 1,980, if officers under flying training are included. There are 1,703 fully qualified pilots. Qualified pilots who are permanently unfit are excluded from these figures. The answer to the last part of the question is, that all officers of or below the rank of wing commander, who have qualified as pilots and are medically fit to fly, carry out regular duty in the air sufficient to maintain them in constant flying practice.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are any steps being taken to reduce the number of officers who do not fly at all?

Mr. LEACH: I shall be obliged if the hon. and gallant Member will put that question down.

COMPENSATION CLAIM (W. H. BAILEY).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 75.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. W. H. Bailey, who, having been given a post at Bir Salem under the Palestinian Supply Department at Surafend, was, on arrival, ordered to occupy a tent between A Camp and the supply depot at a spot which had no guard or adequate police protection near it; whether he is aware that, leaving camp to purchase food. Mr. Bailey, being a civilian and not on the ration strength, had to leave his tent and, on his return, found that all his property, equipment, documents, etc., had been stolen in his absence; and, in view of the fact that this theft was the third reported from this group of tents and the omission of the authorities to safeguard the property of the occupants, will steps be taken to see that Mr. Bailey is given fair compensation for the loss occasioned to him, as Mr. Bailey is almost completely destitute?

Mr. LEACH: The General Officer Commanding the Forces in Palestine is being requested to inquire into this case, which
had not previously been brought to notice, and on receipt of his report I will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member.

RANKER OFFICERS.

Mr. JOHN HARRIS: 79.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the policy of the Air Ministry with regard to the status and retired pay of those officers who have served in the Royal Air Force during the War and, on demobilisation, were given non-commissioned pensions based upon the number of years served in the ranks prior to being commissioned; and whether the Air Ministry is now in a position to reconsider the claim of Air Force pensioned ranker officers to the status and retired pay of commissioned rank?

Mr. LEACH: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on Monday last by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Major Hore-Belisha).

Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the hon. Member tell the House whether the Air ex-officer is to be treated in the same way as the Army ex-officer?

Mr. LEACH: I must ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

LONDON-PRAGUE SERVICE.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: 73.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the present position with regard to the air-transport treaty between this country and Czechoslovakia; and what is delaying the start of civilian transport by air to Prague from England?

Mr. LEACH: The ratification of the temporary air traffic agreement referred to has, in accordance with the provisions of the agreement, been forwarded to His Majesty's representative at Prague for exchange against a similar instrument to be executed by the President of the Czechoslovak Republic. It has not yet been possible, as desired by both Governments, to commence an air service between London and Prague under this agreement on account of the action of the German Government in withholding their consent
to the operation of the service over that part of the route which lies within German territory.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. Member say what steps are being taken to get the consent of the German Government to our flying over German territory?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has not this matter been held up for over a year, and are not the people of Prague anxious to get this air service between Prague and London?

Mr. LEACH: There are certain disabilities placed upon German aircraft development, and they are raising similar difficulties wherever possible to put upon other nations who want to fly over their territory. The whole question is being discussed with a view to removing these difficulties as soon as possible.

FRENCH BUDGET CREDITS.

Commander BELLAIRS: 77.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he can give the approximate total expenditure of the French Government on army, navy and civil aviation as provided in the latest estimates?

Mr. LEACH: The French Budget credits for the year 1924 are understood to be for the Army (including Colonial) aviation, 421,287,639 francs; for Navy aviation, 105,540,081 francs; and for the aviation services, including civil aviation subsidies, administered by the Under-Secretary of State for Air in the Ministry of Public Works, 138,463,350 francs. In addition, a proportion of the provision for general services of the Army and Navy is to be attributed to the requirements of naval and military aviation. Whilst it is not possible to estimate this proportion with accuracy, it is clear that it represents a very substantial amount and that the actual total expenditure on naval and military aviation in France is therefore materially in excess of the figures given above.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the Ministry direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that, for about one-third of the expenditure which we incur, France gets about 10 times the strength?

Mr. LEACH: No doubt the hon. and gallant Member knows that there are very good reasons for that.

Mr. LAMBERT: What is the total expenditure of France on all kinds of aviation?

Mr. LEACH: I thought that my answer had made it clear that that cannot be stated exactly.

AIR-SHIPS.

Commander BELLAIRS: 78.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any estimate has been formed as to the relative cost to the country of proposals for nationalised building and equipping air-ship routes, rendering equivalent service, as compared with the subsidy proposals of the Burney air-ship scheme, excluding all losses from Income Tax which would have been levied and from absence of orders to build for foreign countries; and, if so, can he give the comparative figures?

Mr. LEACH: As stated by the Prime Minister on Monday last, a special Sub-Committee of the Cabinet has been appointed to examine and report on the air-ship question. I am unable to say whether the problem will present itself to the Sub-Committee in such a way as to entail the preparation of estimates of comparative costs based on equivalent services under two different schemes. No estimates of the sort are in existence.

Viscount CURZON: Will the hon. Gentleman exercise his influence with the special Sub-Committee which is considering the scheme to see that it does not unduly delay matters and comes to a decision soon?

WORLD FLIGHT (AMERICA).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 80.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has any information with regard to the proposed American attempt to fly round the world; whether he will obtain a Report from the attaché at Washington as to the number of planes which will make this attempt; and whether the Government of the United States is supporting this enterprise?

Mr. LEACH: The Air Ministry has received full information of the proposed world flight referred to, and has been in
communication with the American air authorities in regard to the arrangements for those parts of the flight which will be over British territory. It is understood that four or five machines of the. United States Army Air Service will take part in the flight, which will be carried out by serving officers with the full support of the United States Government.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Seeing that such flight, if successful, will do very much for American prestige and the development of civil aviation in the United States, will the hon. Gentleman promise the same support to any British attempt on the lines now being carried out in the United States?

MAIL SERVICE (WESTERN ISLES).

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 81.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will inquire into the possibility of a postal air service for the Western Isles of Scotland?

Mr. LEACH: I am afraid the postal traffic concerned would not justify expenditure upon an air mail service as suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Sir GEORGE McCRAE: 86.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of basing the assessment of Income Tax under Schedule D on the profits of the year of assessment instead of on a three years' average as at present, in view of the fact that the next financial year will afford an opportunity of doing so with the least dislocation to the revenue?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Guildford on the 21st February. I am sending him a copy of that reply.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 94.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the disorganisation of the dairying industry, as a result of foot-and-mouth disease, he will instruct the Inland Revenue Department to allow farmers affected, whatever their previous assessment, the opportunity of free election whether they will be taxed under Schedule B on the basis of rent, or under Schedule D upon profits; whether any
difficulties are being thrown in the way of farmers who have hitherto paid under Schedule B paying this year and for the immediate future, should they so desire, under Schedule D; and, if there are no such difficulties, whether he will instruct the Revenue authorities to that effect?

Mr. SNOWDEN: A farmer whose profits fall short of the assessment under Schedule B can have his assessment reduced to the amount of such profits by making a claim to the Inspector of Taxes within one year after the end of the year of assessment. Further, a farmer can elect to be assessed under Schedule D instead of under Schedule B for any year by giving notice to the Inspector before the 5th June. The matter to which the hon. Member refers appears, therefore, to be amply covered by the existing law, and I am not aware of any difficulties in the way of farmers availing themselves of these long-standing and well-known privileges.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. E. BROWN: 87.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would have been the additional cost of Old Age Pensions if the 895,924 recipients, on the last Friday in March, 1923, had all been drawing the full 10s. rate per week?

Mr. SNOWDEN: It would be impossible to disregard means for existing pensioners as my hon. Friend suggests, and continue to have regard to them in future cases. The extra cost of abolishing the means limit would be £18,000,000 a year, which would automatically increase with the increasing longevity of pensioners to upwards of £29,000,000 a year.

Mr. BROWN: As the right hon. Gentleman appears to have misunderstood my question, may I ask if the removal of the disqualification affecting the present recipients would cost £18,000,000?

Mr. SNOWDEN: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BEET-SUGAR.

Mr. GILBERT: 96.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any payment on account of Sugar Duty was paid or allowed to the English beet-sugar
companies in Great Britain for last year; and, if no such payment was made, can he state the total duty secured by these companies on the quantity of sugar manufactured in this country?

Mr. GRAHAM: It is assumed that the hon. Member desires to ascertain the amount of Excise Duty that would have been payable on home produced sugar had the duty not been repealed as from 20th July, 1922. If this assumption is correct, the amount of duty chargeable in respect of the 1922–3 and 1923–4 season's output would have been approximately £140,000 and £250,000 respectively.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. BALDWIN: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal what business it is proposed to take next week?

Mr. CLYNES: The business for next week is as follows:
Monday: Supplementary Estimates. We shall take the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimate for the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Report of the Resolution to be taken to-day in Committee of Ways and Means.
Tuesday: Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, Second Reading; Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill, Second Reading; Trade Facilities Bill, adjourned Debate on Second Reading.
Wednesday: Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, Committee and other stages; Trade Facilities Bill, Committee. If time permits we shall take the War Charges (Validity) Bill, Second Reading.
Thursday: Supply: Civil Services Vote on Account, Vote for the Treasury and subordinate Departments.

Mr. BALDWIN: With regard to the last business mentioned, I take it that it is quite clear that on the Treasury Vote we can discuss the administration of the German Reparation (Recovery) Act?

Mr. CLYNES: I understand that that is the object of the arrangement.

Sir K. WOOD: When will the text of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill be circulated?

Mr. CLYNES: It will be available to-morrow.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that the whole of the outstanding Supplementary Estimates, Committee Stage, are to be taken to-night?

Mr. CLYNES: No.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I wish to raise a question in connection with a Motion for the suspension of the Eleven O'clock rule, which is on the Paper in the name of the Prime Minister. I understand that money is required now for compensation in connection with the Diseases of Animals Act, and that it is necessary to bring in a special Consolidated Fund Bill in order to pay this money out as soon as possible. To do that, it is necessary to bring in two Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means before the Bill can be produced, and it is also necessary to get one stage to-night, and I understand that that is the reason why the Motion is on the Paper. I wish to ask the Government whether they will give an assurance that nothing else will be taken in connection with this Motion except what appertains to the Diseases of Animals Act.

Mr. CLYNES: I will give a reply to this question—a satisfactory one I think—in submitting the Motion which stands in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would point out that the Motion dealing with the Eleven O'clock rule is not debatable, and now is the time to make a statement in reply to the question.

Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the question is in the affirmative. There is no intention to take any business other than the business referred to, and indeed, if there were, we should rather hesitate, at this stage, to try it. It is essential that this business should be passed through to-night, for purely financial reasons, so that it may be completed before the 31st March.

Mr. W. THORNE: I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether he knows that this Motion is very distasteful to many of us, and whether the Government are prepared to consider the advisability of taking additional time at this end of the day, and not at the other end. I do not know whether that would mean that the rules of procedure would have to be altered.

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter is to be debated on a Motion of which notice was given yesterday, and we cannot deal with it now.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I did not hear what the right hon. Gentleman said regarding the Trades Facilities Bill.

Mr. CLYNES: On Tuesday the adjourned debate on the Second Reading of that Measure will be taken.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will it be taken at a reasonable hour?

Mr. CLYNES: I hope it will.

Captain BERKELEY: We have received a memorandum of the Bill relating to the Treaty of Peace with Turkey, but not the text of the Bill itself. When may we expect to receive it?

Mr. CLYNES: At this moment I can only announce the business for next week.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings in Committee of Supply and in Committee of Ways and Means be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Clynes.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

First Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 33.]

SELECTION (PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT).

Mr. Griffiths reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had selected the following twenty-five Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of tins House to act as Commissioners: Sir Samuel Chapman, Dr. Chapple, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Cowan, Major Dudgeon, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Hardie, Mr. Charles Harvey, Lieut.-General Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, Mr. Hutchison, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Neil Maclean, Sir Murdoch Macdonald, Mr. Frederick Martin, Mr. Maxton, Mr. Millar, Mr. Murray, Mr. Nichol, Mr. Sandeman, Major
Steel, Mr. Sturrock, Mr. Stuart, Mr. Frederick Thomson, Mr. Watson and Mr. Wright.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL) (PARLIAMENT ACT, 1911).

Mr. Griffiths reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of Section 1, sub-section (3), of the Parliament Act, 1911, they had appointed Mr. Royce and Mr. Turton from the Chairman's Panel, with whom Mr. Speaker shall consult, if practicable, before giving his certificate to a Money Bill.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. Griffiths reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Rent Restrictions Bill): Sir Henry Cautley and Sir George McCrae; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Foot and Sir Philip Sassoon.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[MR. ENTWISTLE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1923–24.

CLASS II.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,958,010, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, including Loans to Agricultural Co-operative Societies, Grants for Agricultural Education and Research, Grants-in-Aid of the Small Holdings Account and the Cattle Pleuro-Pneumonia Account for Great Britain, and certain other Grants-in-Aid; and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): The Estimate for which I now desire to obtain the sanction of the Committee aims at accomplishing two purposes. One is in connection with the monies due on account of compensation for foot-and-mouth disease, and the other is to make preparation for the grant of loans to farmers' co-operative societies. The expenditure relating to foot-and-mouth disease has been discussed at some length during the last 10 days, and I only wish in connection with it to announce some further facts, but in connection with the second proposal, for which a token Vote appears in the Supplementary Estimate, I desire to say a few words. At the outset, however, the Committee may like to hear the latest figures in regard to foot-and-mouth disease. The total number of outbreaks up to and including 27th February is 2,759, and they have involved an estimated gross sum for compensation of £2,989,000. The amount actually paid out up to 24th February is £2,088,000. The money to enable those payments to be made has been obtained as to £1,750,000 from the Local Taxation Accounts under Section 18 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, and as to £400,000 by way of advances from the Treasury from the Civil Contingencies
Fund, pending the passing of this Supplementary Vote. The remaining £83,000 has been obtained from balances in hand at the commencement of the outbreaks.
I have one announcement to make which will interest the Committee, and which I have only been able to make since yesterday, and that is in regard to the Committee for research, the formation of which I adumbrated last week. I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that the following gentlemen have agreed to serve:

Chairman, Sir Charles Sherrington, G.B.E., President of the Royal Society.
Dr. J. A. Arkwright, of the Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine.
Dr. W. Bulloch, F.R.S., Professor of Bacteriology, University of London.
Professor J. B. Buxton, Director, Institute for Research in Animal Pathology, Cambridge—

—I regret to say no relation of mine, for I should be very proud to have one so distinguished—

Captain S. R. Douglas, F.R.S., Director of the Bacteriology Department, National Institute for Medical Research.
S. H. Gaiger, Esq., F.R.C.V.S., Animals' Diseases Research Association, Glasgow.
Sir John McFadyean, Principal and Professor of Comparative Pathology, Royal Veterinary College.
Professor C. J. Martin, F.R.S., Director of the Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine.
Professor Robert Muir, F.R.S., Professor of Pathology, University of Glasgow.
Sir Stewart Stockman, Chief Veterinary Officer, Ministry of Agriculture.
Mr. H. G. Richardson and Mr. W. G. Wragg of the Ministry of Agriculture will act as Secretaries.

The terms of reference are as follow:—
To initiate, direct and conduct investigations into foot-and-mouth disease, either in this country or elsewhere, with the view of discovering means whereby the invasions of the disease may be rendered less harmful to agriculture.
4.0 P.M.
I am sure the Committee will agree with me that we are very fortunate in having secured such a body of distinguished
gentlemen to deal with this question. As to the second item in the Supplementary Estimate, namely, that referring to co-operation, the object which we have in view is to undertake a new method of helping farmers' societies. Whereas in the past propaganda in this matter has been assisted by grant, the object now is to assist it by loan. At present we are dealing only with a token Vote, because there will probably be no expenditure this year and the main provision of £200,000 is included in the Estimates for 1924–25. It is just possible, however, that something might be spent in this year, and it was thought proper to insert a token Vote, so that the principle involved in this new form of action might be approved by Parliament. I would like very much, if I could, to interest the whole House in this new form of proposal to help farmers who want to combine. As everyone knows, this Government works within limitations which are rather severe, but this is one of the things that I think we can do with the approval of the whole House. The word "co-operation" has been used perhaps ad nauseam in connection with agriculture. I was myself, rather more than 20 years ago, on the Committee of the Agricultural Organisation Society, and I know very well how farmers regard it. I think a more correct expression to use is that we are giving assistance to combinations. We want to help farmers to combine in a way that they understand, and in whatever way they think best appropriate for the purpose that they have in view, and particularly, I think, in connection with marketing. We, on these benches, may be of opinion that there are other ways in which we could help farmers still more, but those we are not at liberty to pursue. Personally, I think, that public trading by methods adopted during the War would be of very great help to farmers. I should be out of order if I went into that matter. Wheat control, I think, would be a very great benefit to them. The Chairman, however, will not allow me to pursue that method. My point is that we have selected the proposal which is most likely to have general support, and which will be of the most benefit to farmers on the whole, especially in many parts of England where the need for combination has been felt, as has been lately
pointed out with great force by the Linlithgow Committee.
Hon. Members are familiar, to a great extent, with the cogent arguments as to the somewhat unnecessary spread which exists in regard to many kinds of agricultural produce between the price received by the producer and the price paid by the unfortunate consumer. We have rather more middlemen and rather higher middlemen's profits in this country than prevail in some other countries. We want to help farmers to eat a little into those profits in so far as they are not necessary. Nobody says that the middleman has not got his use, or that he should not have his legitimate profit. Perhaps I need not dwell on these matters, because the Linlithgow Committee has made them known. If you could, by greater combination, bring down the cost of production, you would not only be helping the farmer, but you would be helping the consumer, and you would be helping, also, the farm labourer, because you would help to bring under cultivation land which at present it does not pay to plough.
There are two ways in which you might be able to deal with the trouble of inefficient marketing. Some of us here would like to see more power taken for local bodies to establish municipal markets. That is a form of Socialism which has, I think, supporters among all parties, in the House, and even among my hon. Friends on my right. But for the present that is not practicable. The other possible method is that of voluntary combination, and it is that we want to help in connection with this Vote. Nobody, not even my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott), who, I believe, will succeed me, contends that it is the panacea for all the troubles of the farmer, but it may go a long way in some parts of this country. We are always being told about Denmark. Everybody realises that conditions in Denmark are very different from our own. The Danish farmer must export if he wants to sell, and it is far easier to organise combinations for an export trade than it is for a trade which has innumerable outlets in great towns, which exist close to the farmers in this country in an unparalleled degree. Exporters must combine. But you do find that the industrial countries of Europe are taking
to combination very much more than our farmers have yet done. Belgium, a highly industrial country, does very much more than we do, and of course, the other countries of Europe which are less industrial have long ago organised themselves in associated bodies to get the advantage of other markets. In England, very great progress has been made since 20 years ago, when I served on the Agricultural Organisation Society, and everyone recognises the splendid work that has been done by some Members of this House. I hope that some of them will speak in the Debate to-day. In England, progress has been made with regard to co-operative insurance, but not much in regard to credits. Let us hope that with the Agricultural Credits Act which we passed last year we shall get a move on in that direction. We are not, however, dealing with that matter, and must not pursue it now, because this Vote is aimed at another proposal.
I should just like to explain the proposal. On 12th February the Prime Minister mentioned that the Government intended to support co-operative enterprises controlled by farmers, and especially trading and marketing bodies. The Linlithgow Committee alluded to the great opening that existed for such undertakings, and urged the need for State assistance to societies engaged in the sale, preparation or manufacture of farm products by providing advances towards capital expenditure on buildings, land, plant, or equipment. The Committee also urged that there should be at the Ministry a Standing Advisory Committee to deal with applications for advances to these societies, and said that the Committee should consist of people with knowledge of agricultural conditions, and also experience in finance and commerce. I propose to adopt both those recommendations, and I hope very soon to be able to announce the composition of the proposed Advisory Committee. The terms and conditions will be settled after discussion with the proposed Committee, but, in general, I can give the Committee to-day some idea of the plan proposed.
Firstly, the societies will be registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, and they will have, for their object, such agricultural purposes
as the Ministry might approve. Their capital must be mainly subscribed by farmers. Subscribers would take shares, of which 5s. at least must be paid up, and the rate of interest would be limited to 5 per cent.
Secondly, in the case of existing societies, loans would be made only for the purpose of improving or extending premises and plant, and they would not exceed half the sum required for such improvements. In the case of new societies, the Ministry would advance not more than half the total capital considered by the Ministry to be necessary to work the society with efficiency, or than the amount of share capital subscribed by the farmers, whichever might be less. In no case—this is an alteration which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sanctioned since my time began—would an advance to such a society be more than £10,000. The previous decision was £5,000.
Thirdly, interest would be charged on these loans at 5 per cent., and the loans would be repayable by instalments over a period of 20 years or less. The first payment might be deferred, say, for 2½ years, so as to enable the society to have sufficient time to get established. The Ministry would, of course, impose certain conditions as to the audit of the accounts and their right to inspect books or to appoint a representative on the committee of management.
There might, of course, be larger undertakings which would need more money, and the Act under which they would be dealt with would be the Trade Facilities Act. While, under this scheme, advances would be limited to £10,000, there might very well be agricultural concerns which could go to the Committee under the Trade Facilities Act and get larger amounts. I am sure that that Board of Trade Committee will be very glad indeed to receive applications under that head. It is possible that some hon. Members may doubt whether farmers will be inclined to take advantage of this kind of help. There is a doubt as to what amount of success has been met with in the past by agricultural co-operative societies. My view is that we cannot attempt to impose the co-operative system or any other system upon the farmers from above. The idea of this plan is to let them build them up from below, and it
may well be that many societies will be started, as they have been in the past, without wanting to come to the State for help at all. It seems to me to be a very appropriate form of action for the State to go out of its way to offer financial help to bodies which would be of great value to the farmer and to the public. Therefore, the Government has decided that its stimulation of this form of combination should be by way of loan to those who have shown that they want to help themselves rather than by propaganda. I hope that the National Farmers' Union, which has now begun to enter into economic action—for instance, with regard to contracts for sugar beet—will be inclined to take up this form of help, and also, perhaps, that the Industrial Co-operative Movement will take a very great interest in the idea of bringing together the organised consumers and the organised producers.
There is one other proposal which I wish to adopt from the Linlithgow recommendations, and that is the appointment of advisory marketing officers. Some form of assistance is absolutely necessary for those who want to form co-operative societies. I had a hand once in forming a society among the tenants of two properties, and I could see that in adopting the rules and getting the legal and other formalities out of the way some advice is absolutely necessary. I hope that these advisory officers will find that they are in request and that their help is valued by the farmers. These advisory officers will make it their business to encourage the establishment of co-operative enterprises by farmers and to provide technical advice and assistance. They will do that as part of the educational work of the Ministry, which, as we know, takes so many forms.
Before concluding my remarks, I would like just to indicate the kind of enterprises which I have most in view. We have seen lately in the papers accounts of two or three bacon factories. There is one that I know in Hertfordshire, which I do not think has got into the papers, but it is a very successful concern. I mean the Hitchin bacon factory. They have been of enormous value to several hundred farmers, and they have paid seven per cent., which is not so bad, considering there was a bonus as well. We have in view bacon factories, milk
collecting depots, and creameries, of which hon. Members will remember that the first interim Report of the Agricultural Tribunal of Investigation last year so cogently showed the need. They pointed out, I remember, the increasing production of fresh milk in this country and the great need of methods of dealing with the growing surplus of milk, which has become a serious problem, and I trust that many societies will be assisted to deal with that matter.

Sir LESLIE SCOTT: By loan?

Mr. BUXTON: Yes, by loan. The Tribunal pointed out that the prevention of wastage or loss through this surplus milk lay in the plan of associations of farmers putting up milk collecting depots at local centres, that where a farm is not big enough to go in for the manufacture of milk products on the individual farm, such societies would help them to put up suitable plant, and that there was a good market in the conversion of surplus milk into dried milk, preserved milk, butter, or cheese. Some of these societies have already been started, often as the outcome of the dairy schools which the Ministry has assisted in so many counties, and we may at least hope that some successful invasions will be made into the colossal import of milk products which we buy now from abroad—namely, about half our butter and nearly three million cwt. of cheese, valued at £15,000,000, and over two million cwt. of condensed milk, valued at £6,000,000, making a vast field which there is a chance of cutting, into. Roughly, the same financial proportions apply to our consumption of bacon. We are importing about 50 per cent. of the pig flesh products consumed in this country, so that there is plenty of room for development on that line.
There are signs, also, in connection with marketing, grading, and packing in the fruit industry, and with egg collecting, of a very rapid adoption of more up-to-date methods of collection and marketing. We all know that things have got to move slowly. It is no good supposing that sudden changes will take place, especially in the country, where we all fall into a more conservative frame of mind than sometimes is the case in the towns. These things will move by degrees, and I only hope that we have
struck a method by which genuine help will be given to practical people to work out things in their own way.
The Ministry will help in connection with bacon factories by its work for improving the breed of pigs. Several factories have come up against the difficulty of the excessive variety of pigs which are brought to the factory. That has to be dealt with, and it will take time, but things are moving, and we may see before very long the extraordinary economy that some of us have seen in Denmark, where they combine milk production with bacon production and run separated milk in a continuous stream from dairy to pig-house, reducing to extraordinary cheapness the production both of bacon and of milk products. I hope to see that economy in this country too. Egg collecting will follow, I hope, on the same lines. I have I think sufficiently indicated the sort of ideas which we have in mind, and I trust that no great flaws can be found in them, and that I shall have general support. I think we may really hope that we shall be able to stimulate a change of method which will be of general value to the farmer, to the labourer, and to the public.

Sir L. SCOTT: I think we shall all agree that the Minister has put forward proposals which will gain general assent from the different parties in this House. The proposals have been put forward in a laudably non-party spirit, and they are essentially non-party proposals. They are proposals, therefore, which we can all approach from the point of view of the interests of the industry itself as a whole, without consideration of any party predilections. I should like at once to say that I regret the absence to-day from our counsels of the right hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland), who succeeded me some two years ago, when I became a Law Officer, as leader of the agricultural co-operative movement, and who was particularly anxious to be present to-day. I am sure that all hon. Members will feel deep sympathy in the cause of his absence from this Debate. The proposals that are made are in essence an extension of the principle of the Trade Facilities Act, applied to the form of business combination which is suitable, and is alone suitable
to the agricultural industry It is impossible really to appreciate the proposals that are made, taken merely by themselves, and I, therefore, welcome the general expressions of opinion on the subject of agricultural co-operation which have fallen from the lips of the Minister.
It is impossible to form an opinion as to whether these proposals are good or bad without forming a perfectly definite opinion on the subject of agricultural co-operation. This is, I think, in the technical language of the House, a New Service that is down in this token Vote, and consequently the Committee has a little larger liberty of discussion than on an ordinary Supplementary Estimate. That is fortunate because the decision as to whether these proposals are on right or on wrong lines must depend very much on the view one takes of agricultural co-operation. I very much agree with the Minister's expression that co-operation is not a panacea for the ills of agriculture. It is essentially a method, and a method which is one amongst many methods, by which the industry can be helped. Those who are not actively concerned in agricultural co-operation rather than those who are, have used the word, I think, in an exaggerated way. It is like that blessed word Mesopotamia in the mouth of some, and I think much harm has been done to what is, as the Minister said, the cause of agricultural combination, by exaggerated attribution to the system of agricultural co-operation of results which it cannot achieve. But although it is very easy to exaggerate, although those of us who have been actively concerned in co-operation have always deprecated exaggeration, it is none the less a very important factor in the limited sphere in which it can be useful.
Those Members who are particularly interested in industrial co-operation will be the first to realise that agricultural co-operation has many points of difference, and that when we are discussing agricultural co-operation we must not be understood as implying either praise or criticism of the methods of industrial co-operation. We know that industrial co-operation has served a great purpose in our community, and with that, I think, we can leave it out of this Debate for the time being; but agricultural co-operation is, I venture to think, the only means by which the small farmers of
England and Wales can be brought into commercial combination. Agriculture essentially consists of two quite separate avocations. It is farming and it is business. A man may be a good farmer and a bad man of business. A man may be able, as a small farmer, to farm well, but yet, standing only on the commercial basis of his small farm, he may be quite incapable, however much business instinct he may have, of achieving successful business results by reason of his very smallness. In that respect, my own view is that agricultural co-operation, the combination of farmers on the business side of agriculture for commercial purposes, is the only way there is—and I say that deliberately—of keeping the small man on the land. Those who happen not to have examined the statistics closely do not as a rule realise what a very high percentage of the farmers of this country are small men. I took out the figures to-day from the last agricultural returns, just to see what they are, because they are vital to the consideration of this question of agricultural co-operation.
There are altogther 414,000 agricultural holdings of over one acre. Of these, 66 per cent. are under 50 acres, 88 per cent. are under 150 acres, and 97 per cent. are under 300 acres. A farm of from 150 to 300 acres, from the farming point of view, may be regarded as a substantial little farm, but from the business point of view, the man who runs a farm even up to 300 acres is a small man, and, on the business side of farming, I say that 97 per cent. of our farmers are small men. In these days of commercial and industrial combination, when every trade dealing in things that the farmer wants to buy is combined into large commercial units, when every trade that wants to buy the things the farmer produces is equally combined—as, for instance, the millers, to take an example—it is essential, if the farmer wishes to bargain on terms of equality, that he should put himself in a position of comparable strength with the combinations with which he has to deal. That principle has been realised to the full in the industrial co-operative movement, and it is vitally necessary that the farmer, if he is to remain an independent man on the soil of this country, and not give place to a series of largo factory farms, should combine with his fellows for buying what he requires and
selling what he produces on a large scale. If you think of it, the joint stock method of combination is inevitably inappropriate. You cannot make it work, and, at the same time, keep the farmer, whether he owns his farm, or whether he is a tenant farmer, on the soil, running the farm as his own farm. The only alternative to the co-operative system is that of large factory farms run by limited liability companies, owning and cultivating large areas of land, and displacing the individual farmer as an independent man upon the farm, and managing it by means of a comparatively small number of managers.
Therefore, if we value—as I, for one, value immensely—the contribution to the strength and health of our national fabric, so to speak, made by the existence upon the soil of a sturdy race of independent small farmers—and it is a view in which all parties in this House can agree—it follows necessarily and inevitably that you must adopt this system of agricultural co-operation, because there is no other method by which they can carry on their business. That is the true position, as I see it, of agricultural co-operation, the necessity for the management of their business on terms of equality with other businesses in these days of hard competition. It will not get over agricultural depression. It will not, by itself, produce a large margin of profit which the farmer sees to-day going into other pockets. I doubt whether these large margins are easily available, and the last Report of the Linlithgow Committee, I venture to think, is extraordinarily sane in the views that it expresses on the possibility of economies by means of co-operation. How much the profits are in the wholesale trade, how much the profits are in the distributing trade before you get to the retailer, who is next to the consumer, it is impossible to say, but that Committee has expressed the opinion—and I see no reason to quarrel with it—that those profits can easily be exaggerated. While not asserting that co-operation is a panacea, while not asserting it can do everything, on the other hand, I think it is important to realise that it is a very valuable aid to the business side of agriculture, and that it ought to contribute, if properly developed, substantially to the farmer's income.
Looking at it from that point of view, I venture to say that it is a sound policy that Parliament should do what it can to encourage agricultural co-operation, and that the proposals made to-day, being proposals which, undoubtedly, will be of assistance in that direction, should therefore be welcomed. Comparison with Denmark and other foreign countries where co-operation has flourished is often made, and it is said, if it can be done in Denmark, it can be done here. That is true, but it is also untrue. The circumstances are different. In a country where agriculture depends entirely for its market on export, the farmers are driven, by an economic lever they cannot resist, to combine together in order to bulk, grade and market their goods for export purposes in the only way they can be marketed, namely, by combination. In this country we have not got that lever. That lever is absent, too, in the United States, but I think here we suffer from additional difficulties which are absent from the United States, for many of our farmers in this country are men whose forbears have cultivated the same farm, and there is a conservatism of practice—I use the word "conservatism" with a small "c"; I make the other parties a present of the small "c"—a conservatism of practice that makes it very difficult for them to adopt new methods, and an independence and individualism of mind that make it extraordinarily hard for them to combine. And, by reason of the difference between the home market and the export market, it is much less easy for them to see the necessity, from a business point of view, of making the combination, which often, at first sight—indeed invariably from time to time—presents the appearance of an immediate sacrifice. It is very difficult to forego the catch-bargain, and not go against your society when you get the opportunity of a slightly additional profit by being disloyal to your society.
Those facts are relevant to this Debate, and for this reason. Co-operation in this country is still essentially in an educational stage, and this House ought to bear in mind it is in an educational stage, and therefore consider proposals to help it as semi-educational proposals. I regard these proposals as having, to some extent, that characteristic, and, from
that point of view I very much welcome them. I think co-operation has made some progress during the last 20 years. To-day there are, including allotment holders, 175,000 members in the societies affiliated to the central body, the Agricultural Organisation Society, and there was a total turnover of £11,000,000 in 1922, and considerable progress has been made. But those of us who have been actively concerned in the movement have been faced with the difficulty of a vicious circle. The farmer has always been saying, "If you can show me what you can do for me, I will then give the support and put up the capital," to which the answer from the Society manager or Committee has been, "If you will give us your capital and support, we will then be in a position to show you what we can do." That is a reason why loans of this kind from the Government are particularly useful at the present time. I do not want to look a gift horse in the mouth in any way, or criticise it. As the proposal has been put forward, I regard it as wholly good, but I would like to say one or two things by way of question as to the limitations proposed. I think we can take it that the knowledge of industrial and commercial business possessed by the farmers of this country as a whole is not yet so advanced as to make it likely that all societies given loans of this kind will use that money successfully and wisely without further advice. Our own experience, at the A.O.S. undoubtedly, is that such societies fairly often want additional advice, and are liable to go wrong unless they get it—the technical advice of those who understand the running of milk depots, and so on—technical advisers who can give their advice, and do give it, and for which very grateful letters of appreciation are continually being received by the society in consequence of the success attending the following of their advice. In many cases the success is very striking. The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) is a critic of agricultural co-operation, but if he desires them at any time, I can show him very remarkable instances.

Mr. LAMBERT: No; I was rather fearing my right hon. Friend was suggesting that the Ministry of Agriculture could teach farmers how to farm.

Sir L. SCOTT: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is the very last thing that I, and, I believe, any of my friends on these benches, would desire. We take the view that farming is much more likely to be successful if farmers do it themselves, and I, for one, deprecate any unnecessary interference by a Government Department in the management of their business. I do not deprecate the Ministry of Agriculture. The Ministry of Agriculture does extraordinarily valuable work for the farming community, but I do not think the farmers want to be managed by the Ministry of Agriculture. This is the sort of letter we get as showing the need of following up advances of money with advice. The Lincolnshire Co-operative Bacon Factory started without expert advice, and later asked the A.O.S. for it, and got it, and were put right, whereupon the chairman wrote:
I wish we had got in touch with you sooner; we would have saved a lot of money.
That is the sort of thing that we are experiencing. As regards the particular proposal made, I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the limit of advance would be £10,000. If that be so, I would ask him to reconsider that limit. I believe that for a £500 a week factory, which is the minimum size of factory likely to pay, the minimum cost of setting it up is £25,000. The Minister will not treat me as an expert on these figures. I merely ask him to give us the opportunity of going into this question, and to say to the House that the limit which is indicated will not be treated as an absolutely rigid limit, if he be satisfied that the sum to invest for an economic concern is rather larger. As regards the rate of interest, money on the security indicated, that is to say, half of the total capital invested on the security of a mortgage on the concern when constructed, could, I should have thought, be obtained to-day from the banks, on terms which are competitive with the 5 per cent. offered by the Minister. When the Credit Bill was in this House on Second Reading, on behalf of the co-operative societies, I said I thought the proposed rate of interest asked for then would kill the scheme. It has proved so, practically. Consequently the Government have recently said that they will find the money at a half per cent. above the bank rate—

Mr. BUXTON: At the bank rate.

Sir L. SCOTT: At the bank rate. A prohibitive rate of interest might very easily kill this scheme, and that again is a matter which I ask the right hon. Gentleman carefully to reconsider. In the White Paper I observe that loans are to be made for the acquisition, extension, improvement, and equipment of premises. Did I understand the Minister in his speech to say that loans might, under certain circumstances, be made for working capital?

Mr. BUXTON: Yes, to new societies.

Sir L. SCOTT: That may be very useful in certain cases, though as a general rule I cannot help feeling that the working capital should be found by the farmers. I think these are the only criticisms that we on this side desire at the moment to make on the proposals themselves that have been made; but there is one point which is important, and that is that under the Industrial Provident Societies Act the limit that any individual can invest in a concern is £200. That was the limit imposed in 1893 when the purchasing power of money was much higher than it is to-day. I would suggest to the Minister that the question of that limit is one that deserves consideration.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I would suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should support the Bill dealing with that subject.

Sir L. SCOTT: I am sure if it be limited to that proposal the hon. Gentleman may count upon my support. There is one other question which is vitally necessary in connection with the sort of agricultural society contemplated by these advances. The societies concerned are societies dealing with products. The essence of the success of a factory of the kind is that it should be able absolutely to rely upon a continuous supply of contracts. Again, I am not expressing any legal opinion on the subject of contracts by members of the societies to give their society the whole of their output, as is done in Denmark, but the point is one which requires consideration from the legal point of view, on account of a decision of the House of Lords some two or three years ago. I should ask the Minister to
have an open mind as to whether or not any relaxation of the stringency of the law against contracts "in restraint of trade"—so called by lawyers—is required in connection with this matter. Lastly—and this is merely a note of caution—it is not enough in these matters of advancing money to groups of farmers to encourage them to set up a factory, or whatever the institution may be, without the most elaborate consideration both as to the permanent sources of supply that that factory may count upon and as to the very best means of carrying it on. The whole subject is one bristling with technical difficulties. I ask that the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the great importance in this matter of calling in both the best agricultural brains in the agricultural community and also the best available expert advice in order that these concerns, established by money granted under these grants, may prove successful. With these few words I desire, from this side, to welcome these proposals.

Mr. HERBERT FISHER: I do not now propose to travel, nor, indeed, am I qualified to travel, over the wide field of suggestions and proposals contained in the interesting speech of the Minister of Agriculture. I rise for the purpose of making one suggestion, and one suggestion only, to the right hon. Gentleman. In the earlier part of his speech he announced the composition of a Committee which he is about to set up to investigate foot-and-mouth disease. It was a very distinguished Committee, and will servo under a very distinguished Chairman. The right hon. Gentleman is certainly to be congratulated on securing the assistance of so many eminent men of science. I doubt, however, whether the reference to this Committee is sufficiently wide, and I would make a suggestion in this matter that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider the reference. It appears to me that the Committee will, under the terms of reference which he had announced, be precluded from considering two points to which I think they should be invited to direct their attention. The first is the source of the infection and the second is the ratio between the number of veterinary experts in this country and the livestock in this country.
The second of these points is, I think, a point of some importance. I had occasion, not very long ago, when considering the needs of the veterinary department of one of the Universities which I represent here, to go into the figure of the supply of veterinary surgeons in this country in relation to the livestock of the country. I was very much impressed by the fact that Britain, which leads the world as a producer and breeder of stock, should be, in the matter of veterinary surgeons, so far behind other countries with smaller financial and economic interests in the breeding of live-stock. It would be well, I think, if the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman is about to establish should be asked to report on this aspect of the case.

Mr. ROYCE: I should like to join with the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Minister on the steps he is taking in the matter of promoting co-operation amongst agriculturists. The farmer is undoubtedly an individualist. The right hon. Gentleman will have a very considerable amount of difficulty, I am quite sure, in bringing co-operation into active operation amongst the farmers of this country. The farmer, as I have said, is an individualist. In 99 cases out of 100 the most successful of the farmers is the greatest obstacle to the introduction of anything in the nature of an innovation. Since these men have tremendous local influence the difficulties of the Ministry are greatly increased, and the right hon. Gentleman must realise what he is up against at the present time when limited liability has become a business habit in this country followed by the transformation of limited liability companies into trusts and combines, which, as a natural consequence, has sounded the death knell of individualist effort in the matter of the sale of any product. I am rather surprised to find my right hon. Friend on the opposite side so thoroughly converted to a system of collectivism. It strikes me as being rather remarkable, coming from that side of the House; it is nevertheless welcome. The farmer, then, acting in his individual capacity, cannot hope to compete with the rings, trusts and combines with which he is met in every possible direction. Everything he has to buy he has to buy from an organisation of that kind. It does not matter what it is, whether it be his agricultural machinery or what not. A few
years ago a farmer could get from an agricultural engineering firm one of their particular types of plough. To-day you have the ring. The same remark applies to manures and to practically everything the farmer has to buy. The same thing occurs in a greater or a lesser degree with everything a farmer has to sell! Things of this kind are up against him in every possible direction, so that anything the Minister can do in the direction of—

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: How is he going to break the rings?

Mr. ROYCE: I am not suggesting how he is going to break the rings. That is a subject which raises some doubt in my mind as to what the Minister will accomplish. It is the immediate benefit with which I am concerned; that is what I wish to speak about in connection with the proposals of the Minister. The immediate benefit to agriculture seems to me to be rather more remote than the great majority of us wish. I want to be perfectly frank. I hoped when the Minister came into the House with proposals to benefit agriculture that he would propose something more heroic than what he has put before us to-day. He suggests that he may bring inferior land under cultivation and he talks of benefit to the farmer and the agricultural labourer. I am not quite sure which is the prospect of benefit to the latter—and he seems to me to be the man who ought to receive the greatest possible consideration at the present time. When I hear of regular wages for dock labourers; when I hear of regular weekly payments in other directions; when I contemplate the amount that these people hope to receive—and have a perfect right to receive; I am tremendously impressed at the position of some of the casual agricultural labourers in our villages. Many of them are receiving, and have been receiving, during this last winter not more than an average of 15s. per week. I should have liked that these proposals should contain something that would have benefited that class, and have benefited them immediately. I do not want to go outside the discussion—I am quite sure I should be pulled up if I did; but that is really one of the troubles that presses on my mind in connection with the agricultural problem and the agricultural situation in this country.
5.0 P.M.
All these schemes are good, excellent, notwithstanding what the right hon.
Gentleman opposite said—and he has tremendous knowledge of this subject—but I say that a great many of the proposals are only some slight enlargement of the work that he has been associated with for a good many years, and he has not made very large progress with it. That is the worst feature. I notice that some of the proposals have been practically carried into effect. The Agricultural Organisation Society sent expert men throughout the length and breadth of the country, capable men, with instructions to organise their friends the farmers and to promote Co-operative Societies, but on his own statement to-day he has not got very far. Though, as I said before, I welcome the proposals made by the Minister I must at the same time express my regret that the proposals are not of the nature that will confer immediate benefit on the agriculturist. There are arable areas—and it is arable areas which are in the greatest need at the present time—where the farmers can manage fairly well, but on the lighter lands it is a very great problem indeed. I do hope the Minister will regard his present proposals only as an experiment leading up to what he will do in the immediate future. I hope he will bring forward proposals which will have a more immediate effect on the farmer, and especially on the agricultural labourer. He has our very best wishes, and everything personally that I can do to forward his proposals will be not only a pleasure but a duty. While expressing that, I hope that something in the nature of proposals that will confer benefit on that section of the agricultural community, the agricultural labourers, who are suffering perhaps more than any other class of workers in this country, will be brought forward.

Mr. LAMBERT: Rather agreeing with my hon. Friend who has just sat down, that the proposals of the Minister of Agriculture to-day are only little ones, I still welcome them so far as they go. I do not think they will remedy the agricultural depression in the arable areas. As far as I can understand them, however, the Minister's proposals are destined more or less to help those who help themselves. If that be so, personally and as an individualist, I welcome them. It is common knowledge to those of us who live on the land, sell
our produce in country places, and see the prices that have to be paid for that produce by the consumer in the large centres of population, that there is an enormous disparity in the prices. Where the farmer is hit and where the labourer is hit is that the farmer has to sell at the cheapest price and the labourer has to buy at the dearest price. The farmer is only able to pay a low wage, and the labourer has to buy with that low wage provisions and other necessaries of life at a very high figure. I understand the proposals of the Ministry of Agriculture are designed in some degree to eliminate the middleman. The middlemen have been engaged in a war orgy of profit, and have not got back to normal. The middlemen in this country are not, like the agriculturists, subject to foreign competition. One has to remember, however, that they are charged very heavy rates and taxes which they have to put on the prices of the produce they sell. If the Government would turn their attention in that direction, and reduce rates and taxes, I would be very grateful. More than that, may I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that if these co-operative societies are to be made a success, we want some reduction of railway rates. Railway charges to-day are very high and very hampering, especially in the West of England.
We are told often that the farmer is backward. I really must protest, as I have protested here before, against any reflections on the business capacity of the general run of farmers. There are some poor farmers, as there are some poor business men, but the farmers as a whole stand out well as good business men; otherwise they would not have produced the finest stock in the world. I have noticed that all those people who are able to tell the farmers how to manage their business are not able to manage farms profitably themselves. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that, in making those proposals of agricultural co-operation, he should consult the Farmers' Union. Do not let him imagine that the heads of the Farmers' Union are not very fine business men. I met the President of the Farmers' Union the other day, and I was immensely impressed by his business capacity. I doubt if there are many men of greater business capacity than the
present President of the Farmers' Union. He pointed out to me the difficulties of co-operation. This question of distribution depends so much upon management. The consumers in these days require so much; they require mutton chops brought to their doors one by one, and their eggs and everything delivered. It is the middlemen who supply the consumer. If co-operation is to be a success, it must be managed well. The real difficulty is to get good managers for those co-operative societies. If an individual middleman or shopkeeper sustains a loss, he has to suffer it himself, but if the manager of a co-operative society incurs a loss, it falls on the society.
I would like the Minister to give us, if he is able to do so, some particulars about the Danish methods of co-operation. I understand that the Danish agriculturists export to this country very largely, under a system that is a very different system from that of our farmers, who sell individually. The farmers are individualists, and the most successful farmers are the most rigid individualists. After all is said and done, that is only natural. Has the Minister any information in his Department about the Danish method of co-operation? What are the costs of production? What are the wages paid? What are the taxes and rates paid by the Danish agriculturists compared with our farmers? The Minister suggested something about a Committee of the Board of Agriculture. I am very suspicious if we are to have more officials of any Department created. I am not sure that we have not got far too many at the present moment. The difficulty about officials is that they must find some work for themselves to do.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going a little outside the Vote.

Mr. LAMBERT: I beg your pardon. I think the Minister said that he proposed to appoint a Committee of the Board of Agriculture to work out those co-operative plans. If that be so, I submit, with great respect, that my suggestion to him is in order. I understand the interest on the money lent is to be 5 per cent. My suggestion to the Government is that, if they want to do something for agriculture, they should lend the money at less
than 5 per cent. Personally, I will give them my support if they will advance it at a little lower rate. After all, if a man has security, he can go to the bank and borrow at 5 per cent. However, if it is 5 per cent., plus red tape, plus circumlocution, that is a very different matter. I know what the difficulties are of getting any money, as the White Paper puts it—
on terms and conditions approved by the Treasury.
The Minister of Agriculture says that we import an enormous quantity of dairy produce and pork. Although I may go outside the scope of this discussion a little, let me suggest to the Minister in regard to the housing problem that he should place houses in the country districts where a man can have a bit of land, and be able to own the land. I believe in people owning something for themselves. It is really very important, if you want a regular supply of food, that you should have a number of small men living in the country who have a cottage and a bit of land attached to it which will give them an interest in the rural districts. Personally I welcome the proposals of the Minister of Agriculture. I do not think they go far. Still, they may be a good beginning, and I do hope that the Minister will in this matter keep the agricultural end up, because the agricultural districts are at a disadvantage. The urban Members outnumber us by 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 to 1, and it behoves us, as agriculturists, and the Minister of Agriculture, to enable farmers to help themselves, thus increasing the amount of home produce that is being grown, which will in turn help the consumers in the towns to get good wholesome British produce.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: In so far as this proposal is going to bring the assistance of public money to any branch of agriculture, I welcome it, but I am bound to say that, with the exception of the benefit to individual small farmers or smallholders dealing with the very small part of agriculture, I cannot see how it is going to deal with our principal troubles. I wish to ask whether, in the Minister's view, this Bill is going to be directed in its application to the whole process of marketing? I have here the Report of the Linlithgow
Committee, and on this subject I would like to read three passages. On page 28 of that Report, it says:
At the same time by carrying co-operation into the sphere of distribution, producers hope to improve their returns by the extent of the profits of the middleman. The middleman, however, is an experienced specialist who is already in the field, and not likely to surrender his living without a struggle. Farmers' organisations seeking to displace him must, therefore, be in a position to improve on the efficiency of his service. Though they may push their sales with all the energy of self-interest they are confronted even at the first stage, with well-organised and skilful wholesale traders, who as a general rule, perform their functions on relatively small margins.
The Report goes on to say:
If it is the intention to control the marketing of produce until it reaches the consumer, or at any rate, the retail distributor, the farmer should disabuse his mind of the fallacy that the margins of the distributors displaced represent so much additional profit for him. They are mostly made up of essential service and labour charges, and it is only a relatively small proportion which is available for appropriation, even assuming that the society is able to perform the distributive services more efficiently than the middleman whom it supersedes. Co-operation is unlikely, therefore, to secure to the producer any really important part of the existing distributive margin. In most cases it is only the wholesaler's services and so the wholesaler's profits that can readily be taken over.
And lastly, in the conclusion on page 32, the Report says:
Our view with regard to the future development of agricultural co-operation in this country is, therefore, that the more ambitious schemes of co-operative marketing and distributing produce by farmers direct to consumers, though admirable in their conception and intent, are fraught with considerable risk.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentlemen who preceded me that, so far as we are concerned with the interests of the producers on the farm, the great difficulty we have is to save these retailers' profits between the producer and the consumer, and yet this Report tells us that co-operation is no good for that purpose. If that be so, how is this proceeding going to benefit agriculture? What is the difficulty we are up against? It is that arable cultivation cannot be conducted at a profit, and it is by arable production that the men who work for weekly wages on the land are employed It is common knowledge now that on
every 100 acres of arable land, at least four men are employed.
Let me take as an illustration of the immediate position with which the Government has to deal, the condition of Norfolk and Suffolk. Nobody knows better than the Minister, except possibly the hon. Member for Southern Norfolk (Mr. G. Edwards), the conditions under which arable cultivation is being carried on in the Eastern Counties. How will this proposal help them, if it is confined to marketing, as the right hon. Gentleman told us it was? How is this Measure going to help the farmers in Norfolk and Suffolk to sell their wheat and barley or improve their present sale? How is it going to help them to sell their cattle or sheep?
Is this the only remedy for the conditions prevailing where we know that the wages of the men have been driven down even lower than 25s. per week, and where the farmers are unable to make a profit, and are being driven out of the farming business? Is this the only thing a Socialist Government can put before us as likely to assist agriculture? This is simply trifling with the question, and it is the work of amateurs. It will benefit the small grower and the small farmers who do not employ many workmen, but I ask any of the hon. Members opposite who represent the aristocracy of labour, how will it assist the wages of a single man working on small wages, or how will it improve the profits, out of which wages come, to a single farmer in the Eastern Counties?
If you take the Lincolnshire farmers, how will it help the farm workers there? Is this the only thing we are going to have from the Socialist Government to help us to set the agricultural industry on its feet? I am speaking solely to-day as a farmer, and solely on my own behalf. I have farmed as a tenant farmer for over 35 years, and I have never known the position of arable farming so bad as it is at the present time. I regret, with all the sincerity I can command, the meagreness of the Measure that has now been put forward to help agriculture.

Mr. PATTINSON: In this Debate we have heard a good many opinions expressed on both sides of the House, but one thing which has struck me most is the lack of interest taken by hon. Members
in the greatest industry of this country. I do not think we take enough interest as a nation in this industry, and I may say that I can see no direct profit to the farmer, or even to the agricultural worker, from the suggestions which the Minister put before us this afternoon. Still, I am business man enough to know that very often you may get your profits out of your by-products, and often the main portion of your business, though not profitable alone, may become profitable if you can attach to it another industry such as may be attached to agriculture by co-operation.
One of the great troubles in agriculture is that at no time has the farmer been able to build up a reserve fund, and he is short of capital at all times. Personally, I would like to do a great deal to my own farm, but I cannot see that I am going to derive any profit from what I would like to do. If credit could be extended to farmers for the purposes of liming our heavy wheat land, and providing manures, we should be conferring a real benefit upon agriculture. An industry that cannot pay a good living wage—and in that I include the services of the farmer as well as the workmen—is a bankrupt industry, and that is the position of agriculture to-day. The Minister of Agriculture has laid before us, this afternoon, something that has never been laid before us on any previous occasion. At any rate, it is a real attempt to do something, and I congratulate him upon it. By co-operation and by co-operative movements we can do a great deal, and I hope that the small amount of money which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested for this purpose will be increased.
An allusion has been made to bacon factories, but I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that a bacon factory could not be profitably carried on with less than 500 pigs per week. I hope we shall have on this subject propaganda by real experts who have the interests of the Industry at heart. I am sure we are all very much pained to see our workmen living on a wage which is not adequate. The shortage of capital is the main reason why this industry is not prosperous to-day. A good deal has been said about the middleman, but why does the farmer always go to the middleman? He goes there for credit. My right hon. Friend the Member for
South Molton (Mr. Lambert) said it was very easy to go to a bank and borrow money. I think it is due to the Committee that he should tell us the name of his banker. We know that we all in the House of Commons have the interest of this industry at heart, and I do not think that any of us should pour cold water upon the scheme of the Minister, but that we should encourage it, not only here, but in the districts where we live, by pointing out its advantages to the farmers, and also the landowners, who do not have the opportunity of studying commercial problems. Farmers, and many landowners also, live in an isolated condition. They have no knowledge of great commercial businesses, and they look, naturally, with a great deal of suspicion on any commercial enterprise of this kind. I think they are wrong. I think there is much to be done, and I trust that the Minister will receive the support of every agricultural Member of the House; and I hope that, if we have a Debate of this kind again, we shall receive more support than we have received this afternoon.

Mr. LAMB: The last speaker complained about the lack of interest that is being taken here in this very important Debate. I can assure him and the Committee that, whether his suggestion be true or not, there will be no lack of interest in the country itself to-morrow morning when people are able to read the speech of the Minister of Agriculture, to-day. I listened carefully to what he said, and I believe—especially after the statement of the Prime Minister on the 12th February with regard to co-operation being considered by the Government to be the best means by which they can help agriculture—that the Minister's statement to-day on the question of co-operation will be read with very great interest. Another thing which I believe will be read, not only with interest, but with great satisfaction, is the statement that he made that they were going to rely, not so much upon force from above, as upon growth from within—upon giving assistance to the farmer from the industry itself. Certainly we do not want too much control from above. If the Minister will confine himself very largely to meeting the desires of and assisting growth from within the industry itself, his statement to-day will be received with great satisfaction.
Reference has been made to co-operation in Denmark. We are always
receiving information and advice as to why we should follow on the lines of the co-operation which has admittedly been so successful in Denmark. To my mind, the principle of co-operation is in itself sound, but a principle is only valuable in so far as it is practicable, and it is only practicable is so far as it can be put into operation under the existing conditions. The hon. Baronet the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), in an interjection, referred to rings; but rings represent the carrying of the principle of co-operation to an excess, and an excess in any principle is a far greater evil than it is a good. The conditions in Denmark are very different from what they are here. Why has co-operation been a success in Denmark? In the first place, Denmark is a small country, and is almost entirely an agricultural country, very largely free from the conflicting interests which exist in this country owing to the presence of the industrial element. Denmark, in addition to being an agricultural country, is dependent very largely, if not entirely, upon the export trade, and to get into the export trade co-operation is compulsory. In this country the conditions are almost entirely the reverse of those in Denmark We are an industrial nation, and the interests of the industrialists are almost entirely opposed to those of the purely rural areas. Again, we are not an exporting nation as far as the agricultural industry is concerned, with the exception of pedigree stock, and I may say that the pedigree stock from this country, which is produced very largely by private enterprise, is acknowledged to be the finest in the world.
The basis of co-operation, however, is loyalty, and the conditions in Denmark impose loyalty, while the conditions here do not. Here we have an alternative market, and the farmer, quite naturally, when the opportunity arises, takes advantage of the alternative market which is sometimes, I am sorry to say, placed at his disposal by means which are not altogether legitimate, owing to the efforts of some people to cut out the co-operative societies. He takes advantage of this alternative home market, and there is no society in existence which can carry its members in adversity if they are not going to have the advantage of carrying them during periods of prosperity. We should
be in a much better position if, before trying to force or assist co-operation, we were to concentrate our efforts upon trying to alter the conditions in the country so that co-operation will have a better opportunity when it is once started. Under existing conditions the possibilities for co-operation are strictly limited, and to-day we cannot look upon co-operation as a cure for the great depression which exists, particularly in the arable areas. It certainly will not help them very much under present conditions. At any rate, I cannot see any hope that it will retain the existing area of arable land, or help the agricultural worker. After all, it is the agricultural worker whose interest must be considered, perhaps first, in this case, because this country will receive from agriculture as a whole any type of agriculture which it is prepared to demand and pay for. If he is compelled, for economic reasons, to farm his land in any particular way, the farmer himself will accommodate himself to the circumstances. The man who is going to suffer, and suffer first, is the agricultural labourer.
Reference has been made to the National Farmers' Union. I may say that it is a very democratic body, and, until that body as a whole has had the opportunity of considering the statements of the Minister to-day, I am sure I am not entitled to speak for the National Farmers' Union as a whole, but I think I may refer to the speech made by its President when he was elected to the chair at the last meeting. His reference on that occasion to co-operation was distinctly sympathetic, and I can say as a fact that that reference has been accepted with pleasure, and I might say with enthusiasm, throughout the whole of the National Farmers' Union, which has branches in every county of England and Wales. They are not allowed, under their rules, to trade, but they have already expressed their sympathy with co-operation. They have had conferences with co-operative societies, trying to devise and help and see where difficulties arise. They have also, as has been already mentioned, organised bacon factories in various parts of the country. Again, and I think this is very important, they have undertaken to take charge of the co-operative interests of the growers
in the beet industry, a duty which it would be absolutely impossible for the individual grower to undertake for himself. Again, with regard to the sale of milk, they have taken co-operative measures to influence the system under which milk is sold collectively, which is, after all, a form of co-operation. They have also recently appointed a full-time official to look after the collective railway rate interests of agriculturists throughout the whole community.
All this shows that in various ways they are taking an active interest in co-operation for the benefit of the agriculturist. I have no doubt whatever that any suggestions made by the Ministry which are likely to benefit the industry will receive very sympathetic help from the National Farmers' Union, and, without giving any pledge, I believe I am also entitled to say that they are prepared to assist in bringing the farmer as a producer into contact with the industrial co-operative societies as distributors where they possibly can. I also think it advisable that I should say what I do not think the Farmers' Union will do. I am confident that they will not actively come or be brought into competition with the Agricultural Organisation Society. One reason, possibly, why the National Farmers' Union in the past have not taken up co-operation more vigorously is the existence of the Agricultural Organisation Society, which we know has existed very largely by State aid. At the same time, as I have said, any suggestions which may be made will, I am sure, receive the very careful consideration of the National Farmers' Union. A second thing which I think they would not do is this: they would not advise farmers to run into schemes or suggestions made by anyone without giving those schemes very careful consideration, because if there is one thing from which farmers and agriculturists in this country have suffered in the past, it has been going headlong into various schemes suggested by various individuals without giving them due consideration in detail. Any real suggestion for progress in the industry will receive their very sincere co-operation, and I feel confident that, in regard to whatever the Ministry may suggest, if there is any chance of the industry or the community benefiting from it, the National Farmers' Union will be anxious to do all that it possibly can.

Mr. FINNEY: I wish to make a few brief remarks on the programme for helping co-operative agriculture which has been put forward by the Minister. It is, no doubt, well known to many people that agriculture has always been one of the topics on which people, whenever they have thought about it, have got excited, but, whenever it has happened that they have had to attend to some serious matter connected with it, their enthusiasm has evaporated very quickly. It is rather strange to find that to-day, when we ought, perhaps, to be lamenting the disappearance of
a bold peasantry, their country's pride,
one sees so many empty spaces in this Chamber. I welcome the suggestions of the Minister, although like my hon. Friend the Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Royce), I am only too well aware that they will meet with the great spirit of individualism which curses so many of our most successful farmers. They always seem to associate the word "co-operation" with those multiple shops which show an unfortunate taste in mahogany and mirrors. But they must be brought to understand that this is purely a matter of their own choosing, a question of voluntary association, and also that they will actually get—there must be no doubt about it—assistance from the State. I do not want to press the point, but agriculture has been let down before, and it is not the easiest thing in the world for an agriculturist to map out his programme and then find himself dropped in the middle of it and not get the credit he expected. It is certain that amongst the best of our agriculturists, among probably some of the younger ones who have gone through some sort of educational training there is a great desire to go in for this movement, but in my constituency, which is much more a grazing than an arable area, I have found innumerable instances of such people going in for pig keeping by methods of dry feeding, for poultry, and for butter making, and they know the important points of grading their products.
That is one element which must be paid attention to. It is no good a man going in for co-operative agriculture if he proposes merely to throw his products haphazard on the market. With regard
to the marketing of those products, the farmers themselves must be prepared to pay a very good salary to a man thoroughly equipped with a business mind and with knowledge of business methods. It is very little good coming along and saying, "There is a relative who might do it for £2 a week, and you are paying this man £10." The relative might, but he might make a mess of it. They have to pay a well-equipped man a decent salary in order to carry out the very difficult task of marketing these products for the group that is in co-operation. I hope, too, that attention will be given to smallholders who desire to join this movement. There is nothing more important to-day than to encourage the development of small holdings wherever the land is suitable for it. I know in my own district some very unsuitable land which was made into small holdings, but although I was very much against it at the time it has proved very successful indeed up to a certain point, and applications for more land are still pouring it. That must not be lost sight of in this general plan of co-operation. It is important to give the smallholder attention. It is there where we need to encourage people, both from the point of view of arresting the depopulation of the rural areas and of giving some outlet to the farmers' sons other than the usual practice of emigrating to the Colonies. I need hardly say I, too, have felt disappointment with the proposals enunciated in that they did not seem to me to give much relief to the sorely pressed farm labourer. Norfolk and Suffolk have been mentioned, where there is a very terrible condition; but surely there are points about that which might on closer investigation be taken up. Surely I am right in thinking that in those areas too many white crops have been grown in succession in certain places. Apart from that I will not press the point, but there, again, it is important to realise that not only must the labourers be given a chance of having their wages adjusted adequately and equitably, but that some assistance should be given by helping them to have a certain amount of land on which they can take part in rearing pigs for the co-operative bacon factory. That ought not to be lost sight of. In the main this is a preliminary or prelude to what I hope will be a more courageous and more comprehensive
agricultural policy, and I welcome it.

Mr. BLUNDELL: The hon. Member who has just spoken has fallen into the rather common error of teaching farmers how to do their business. If we had in this House at present all the hon. Members who have made great play with co-operation in their election addresses what a House we should have to address. But the point that is too often mistaken in dealing with farmers is that people who are well acquainted with business methods attempt to teach the farmer as a producer, and do not attempt to teach him where he does require instruction, and that is in the best application of business methods in dealing with his products. As one very deeply interested in the co-operative movement I do not propose to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott), who has stated so fully the views of those engaged in the agricultural co-operative movement. I shall only follow him in saying that, like him, we in the movement most cordially welcome the proposals that the Minister has put before the House. But I, unlike my right hon. Friend, represent a rural constituency and I think therefore I should not be doing justice to them if I did not say that the right hon. Gentleman's statement will be received with a good deal of disappointment in the rural districts. We in the agricultural co-operative movement have never rated its claims too high. We have never pretended that it was a panacea for all agricultural ills because, as the Prime Minister said with such emphasis last night, we know what we are talking about. We know that while the farmer cannot sell his produce at the price it cost him to produce it neither co-operation nor any other remedy can put agriculture on a prosperous footing and something else is required besides co-operation.
When the Prime Minister put forward his proposals at the beginning of the Session I hoped very much that the Minister of Agriculture would not try to find a soft place in the same sand to bury his head in; and would not, with the Prime Minister, seem to think that all was well in the agricultural world because the Ministry of Agriculture were going to teach people to keep accounts better. I
very much fear from what the right hon. Gentleman said on 14th February, when he waived aside the fact that there were 3,000,000 acres less of arable land than immediately after the War and 100,000 fewer labourers on the land, that he is hiding his head in the sand like the Prime Minister. But these proposals so far as they go we who are interested in agricultural co-operation welcome very cordially, we think they are on the right lines, and we will do everything in our power to assist the Minister to carry them out successfully.
The criticisms that are levelled at agricultural co-operation seem very often to be wide of the mark. For instance, we hear a great deal about Denmark, and those who think that co-operation is boomed too much as a panacea for agricultural evils say, Yes, Denmark is an exporting country, and we are an importing country, and therefore what has been successful in Denmark cannot be expected to be successful in this country. What has really made co-operation a success in Denmark is the fact that they have a very much higher standard of rural education than we have in this country and, further than that, as far as bacon production is concerned, they have produced a standard pig. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that we had in this country every sort and description of pig, and each county or little group of counties keeps one kind of pig, and no other. It would be very well worth the right hon. Gentleman's while to try to educate the farmer up to a standard pig. It does not very much matter whether it is black or white, provided the measurements are right for bacon production. In my opinion, the real reason why Denmark has been more successful in co-operation, apart from the advantage of being an exporting country, which undoubtedly counts, is that they have a higher standard of education and they have been successful in producing a standard pig. One of the methods by which they do it is by subsidising breeders to supply pigs of a given quality at a standard price to those who wish to feed them for the bacon factory. If something of that sort could be started in connection with our bacon factories here, it would be a very great help in the direction of regaining a portion of the bacon trade. Another criticism that is
levelled against the co-operative movement is in connection with combines and rings. An hon. Member has asked how is co-operation going to break rings. There are various methods of dealing with rings, and it is not always necessary to break them. If you are big enough you need not bother about breaking a ring. You can get inside. And what those in the co-operative movement think is, if once we can get big enough and get the weight of agricultural opinion in the country behind us, we shall be able, if we cannot break the ring, to get inside it and enjoy the same advantages as those who are inside it already. I think there will be a great deal of disappointment in the rural constituencies that the right hon. Gentleman's proposals do not go further, still we welcome them as far as they go and we will do our best to help him to make them a success.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. HUGH SEELY: I did not expect the Minister to explain away the short-comings of his policy by saying it is a legacy from the people who have now gone away. It was not at all what I think people engaged in agriculture expected. The whole question of agriculture to-day is, that it is in very great difficulties and wants actual assistance. This is not help to the people who are in difficulties; this is a new policy and a scheme for the whole agriculture of the country when it reaches better days. A great deal can be said for all this co-operation, but, actually, for the farmers and the agricultural labourers it will not help at the moment. It is chiefly a matter dealing with another principle altogether and another part of the community, namely, the middle men. It is a very big question. It is not confined to agriculture, and if you brought co-operation into agriculture you would have to have it in a great many other things. It should be approached on broader lines, and we should have a good deal more information as to how it is going to work, who is to appoint the officials and whether it really can be a success. Farmers really are in great difficulties, which have reached such an extent that, whatever happens now in the way of good seasons, I do not think it possible that they could bear up against the load of debt which they have got into on the arable farms. They want actual help and actual credits, so that they can really
afford to go on and live. The question of the housing of the agricultural labourer also comes into it. That is a very big part of the question how you can help the farmer of to-day. In this scheme I do not see the help which is really wanted in the devastated agricultural districts in this country, particularly by the farm labourers. The scheme of co-operation largely deals with the middleman, and on that a good deal has been said as to Denmark, pigs, marketing of produce and so on. In regard to those matters possibly a great deal more help can come from hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they understand them more than we do here. What we want at the moment from the Government, and I think we ought to get it, is a great deal more help for the agricultural labourer, who, at the moment, is in great difficulty and is so badly paid that he cannot, in many cases, see his way to clothe or even feed his children properly. That is the help which the farmers want, and which the agricultural labourers want at the moment. I appeal particularly for those who need help and not for those who do not need it so pressingly.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I think the ratepayers as a whole will welcome the provision made in this Vote by which the limit imposed under Section 18 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, is this year removed, namely, the limit of £140,000 which can be paid to the credit of the Local Taxation Account for the purpose of dealing with animal diseases. I think hon. Members will permit me to make one or two observations in regard to these financial proposals and their incidence. I should like, first of all, to point out that foot-and-mouth disease during the past two years has not been a heavy charge upon the taxpayers. If we except 1921 and 1922, for nine years we only spent three-quarters of a million sterling. In 1913–14 the expenditure was less than £6,000; in 1916–17 only £39, and in 1917 nothing at all. That, I think, vindicates the policy which has been pursued by the Ministry of Agriculture. It justifies the barbarous policy of slaughter which we have had to pursue because, at any rate, it has had this result that the disease has remained epidemic and has not become
endemic. That has been a great gain to the country. There is one matter upon which I should like to have an assurance from the Minister of Agriculture, for it is not clear to me. I have been examining the details as set out on page 6 of the Vote, and in that statement are these words:
It is proposed that, on the removal of this limit"—
that is the £140,000 limit—
the amount contributed by the Local Taxation Account in respect of foot-and-mouth disease should be restricted in this financial year to the amount by which that part of the Estate Duty for this year which is payable into the Local Taxation Account exceeds £2,757,000.
That means, that anything in excess of £2,750,000 paid as an Exchequer grant contribution into the Local Taxation Account will be taken for the purpose of dealing with this outbreak. In the speech which was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture last night, he said, in the clearest terms:
The amount that will be taken from the Local Taxation Account for this purpose is specifically limited to £250,000, because we do not want to make unfair encroachments upon it. If it turns out that a smaller amount is required, then the £250,000 will not be taken, while if the amount required exceeds £250,000, then no more than £250,000 can be taken from this fund."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1924, col. 558, Vol. 170.]
Which is right? Is the Parliamentary Secretary right when he says that in no circumstances will more than £250,000 be taken, or is the White Paper right which says that the difference between £2,757,000 and the receipts under the Estates Duty Grant will be taken? Which of these statements are we to follow? It is very important to have a perfectly clear statement on matters of finance, and on matters of this kind. Under the Estate Duty Grants in 1921–22 there were distributed to the local authorities £2,465,000, and in 1922–23 the amount had risen to £3,512,000. That is an important asset of which the local authorities have been obtaining the benefit in the past, and we ought to have some reason put before us as to why the Estate Duty Grant is going to be tapped in this way, and we ought to know whether there is going to be a limit on the amount that is to be taken from that source.
If the Estate Duty Grant this year amounts to the same figure as it did last year, not only will £250,000 be taken from this account, but something like £750,000 will be taken from the account. That is a serious matter as far as local authorities are concerned, and it is a matter upon which we want more information. The local authorities do not want to be milked, and they do not want to have their hen-roosts robbed and to suffer in these directions. I am not saying that this Fund should not be tapped, but I want a perfectly clear statement as to how much is going to be taken from it, and whether it is £250,000 or more. If this Grant is going to be tapped, the local authorities should be consulted in the matter. I think the principle of stereotyping should only be applied to what is withdrawn from the Grant and not in the way which appears to be done in this case. I do hope we shall have a clear statement as to which of these two sets of figures which have been put before the House are to be acted upon in future.

Mr. RHYS: May I claim the indulgence of the House on the occasion of my maiden speech. I welcome the co-operative proposals of the Government, but I should like to see a further step taken. I am particularly interested in the poor wage that is paid to the agricultural labourers, and I did hope to see from the right hon. Gentleman opposite something more than he proposes. We must give these labourers not a sweated but a living wage. Co-operation is right in principle. I can speak from some knowledge of it, because we have had it in operation in connection with the milk trade in my own district, and the farmers have found that it works very well in milk distribution. The class of farmer who is the hardest hit at the present time is the farmer who bought his farm directly after the War, during the boom period. The established dairy farmer before that time had something put by to tide him over the rainy days, but the farmer who took his farm at the very high prices obtaining in 1919–20 is feeling the slump very much, and he is very often a young farmer. Special consideration should be given to his case.
With regard to the policy of slaughter, it seems to me that it is the only one that can be adopted. Isolation cannot really be of great benefit: it is almost
impossible to thoroughly isolate. There is no doubt that the disease is carried by birds and in other ways. There was an outbreak in Kent last week, miles away from any other outbreak, and slaughter has, no doubt, been effective in stopping the outbreak from spreading. Isolation is not, therefore, a safeguard. The administration of the Ministry of Agriculture as far as slaughter goes is, if I may say so, rather open to criticism, and I hope that a real inquiry is to be made into the working of the Ministry, and that we shall not be put off simply with an inquiry into the cause of the outbreak. We ought to go very carefully into the actual work of the Ministry.
I am very interested in seeing the interest that is taken in the question of agricultural labourers' wages by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House, especially after the policy which they adopted during the Election, which, it seemed to me, meant that the labourer was going to get a sweated wage. That line of argument may be outside the scope of the Debate, but I am glad to see the interest that is being taken in this question, and I hope that steps will be taken to give the labourer a proper wage. We were taunted with being the party which professed to take an interest in agriculture; but as far as the party on this side of the House are concerned, I think we can claim that we have done more for the farmer and the labourers than any of the other parties.

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: I should like to know from the Minister in regard to Item J.2 which states that there is to be a saving of £25,000, whether he will tell us in what way the £25,000 will be saved.

Mr. HOBHOUSE: I wish to make a few remarks on the question of co-operation. We welcome the proposal of the Minister of Agriculture in regard to co-operation very warmly, but we must realise that co-operation cannot cure all the ills from which agriculture is suffering. The difficulties that are due to world prices, to the excessive burdens on land, and to the lack of up-to-date methods in agriculture, cannot be cured by co-operative organisation. But I think that it is wise to consider for a few minutes the practical advantages which co-operation may bring, and which it
has already brought in different parts of this industry.
In the first place, co-operative organisation, by competing with existing distributive organisations, can raise prices for the producers. That is so in the case of milk. I know a case in which an existing co-operative society, running in competition with another organisation, raised the price of milk for the farmer by 2d. a gallon. Then there is a gain to agriculture in co-operation by going into the sphere of distribution. In the third place a portion of the distributor's profits can be made to flow into the channels of the industry, by the collection and bulking of produce through the co-operative societies, as has been done successfully with fruit and vegetables. That is a distinct gain to agriculture and enables this country to compete with imported fruit and vegetables, and thereby obtain a bigger return for the producers in this country. Furthermore, fresh outlets for agricultural produce can be provided by co-operative concerns, where they are successful. I believe that that is the case in Cornwall, where it is not possible, owing to the great distance to send the milk to our large centres of population, butter is being made on co-operative lines with great success.
Dealing with this question of co-operation, I do feel that we must keep in mind the four essentials that were laid down by the Linlithgow Reports in their very able summary as to the distribution and prices of agricultural produce. In the first place, it is essential that there should be competent management for co-operative concerns, which means more especially that such managers shall be adequately remunerated. The second essential is that there shall be loyalty to the co-operative organisation shown by members of that organisation, and in practice that is best arrived at by having a definite contract or undertaking by the members to supply at least the major portion of their produce to their own society. Thirdly, it is suggested by the Linlithgow Report that co-operative societies should be combined or federated into district societies. I think that I am right in saying that co-operative dairying, which has been successful in Scotland to a greater extent than it has been in England, obtained its success largely owing to the fact that in that country it has federated itself by districts. Finally,
co-operation needs, as all business concerns need, sufficient capital.
That brings me to the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture with reference to the proposals now before this Committee as to the help which he is prepared to afford to co-operation. I believe that the suggested amount, £200,000, is a sufficient beginning. But should co-operation go ahead at anything like the fast rate at which we should like to increase the speeding up of co-operative bodies it seems to me that a much bigger sum than £200,000 will be required. Reference was made by the right hon. Gentleman to the use which could be made by applying the funds of the Trade Facilities Acts. I would ask how much in fact has been applied for in the matter of money for agricultural concerns from that account. Then there is the question of propaganda. I think that the Linlithgow reports made it clear that what is required, even as much as credit, for co-operative concerns is intensive propaganda. It takes a great deal of propaganda to get things into the heads of some of our country people, who live far away from centres of population and who do not read a great deal.
I would suggest that this question of propaganda should be pressed through every available organisation, the Agricultural Organisation Society, the National Farmers' Union, the Co-operative Wholesale Society, and every other agency which desires to see co-operation in agriculture. Then there is the question of assistance in the matter of providing trained organisers. It is all to the good that there should be advisory marketing officers appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture, but I think that it would be worth the right hon. Gentleman's consideration to think over the question of providing a small number of trained managers who would start the new societies on right lines. I conclude by saying that co-operation, to be successful, must be varied in its forms and operations, to suit the varying needs of the locality, and the varying nature of the produce which is going to be marketed.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: The Prime Minister in the course of a speech has recommended co-operation as the best means of developing and stimulating the agricultural industry. I think that co-operation is a very popular prescription
with regard to a great many matters. The right hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool in the course of his speech just now compared the word "co-operation" with that blessed word Mesopotamia. I think that that blessed word Mesopotamia has lost something of its sanctity to any who have had to spend much time in that country. I hope that those interested in co-operation will not expect too much from it. I agree that up to a certain point it will be beneficial, but it cannot be regarded as enough. The Minister of Agriculture, I think, recognises that. I think that in the direction of buying rather than of selling it is likely to be most useful. For instance in the purchase of raw materials and fertilizers. On this question I would suggest that it would be well to consider the possibility of using as fertilizers some of those large amounts of waste products from our towns. Many of them would be of use as fertilizers. Most of them are now destroyed and cost a certain amount of money to destroy.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member is going somewhat wide of the Vote which we have before us at present.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: I was trying to suggest means of co-operation which I thought would be of value. If co-operative buying can enable farmers to increase the yield from their land, without a corresponding increase in the cost of production, that will be a very great help. As regards co-operative selling, I think that we cannot take it for granted that because that has been a success in a country with a large food export trade, it must necessarily be a success for us. The many difficulties of establishing it in this country are dealt with in the Report of the Linlithgow Committee. It goes into such matters as the reluctance on the part of the farmers to engage in it, and the good organisation and efficiency of the present wholesale traders' association. Of course, it may be urged that the reluctance of the farmers is no argument, and that they ought to learn to appreciate its advantages. I think that that may come in time, but it will not come all at once. I think that co-operation will be of use, but I am very doubtful whether it will put the farmer in a position to maintain the existing acreage of arable land, and
if it does not do that it will not prevent the unemployment which is now threatening the agricultural labourers.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith): I wish to answer the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) as to how far the sum of money concerned is liable to be increased from the local taxation account. I regret that yesterday in the statement which I made, owing to a misunderstanding with regard to the figures, I stated that there was a maximum of £250,000 fixed in regard to this. I now find that the statement made in the White Paper is correct, and that there is no maximum, but that the amount that will be taken will be that sum which comes into this fund this year in excess of £2,757,000. It is expected that that amount will not be greatly in excess of £250,000. The exact amount cannot be stated as the fund is not yet closed. On that point having regard to the various other encroachments made on this fund for this purpose unless this step had been taken the whole of this giant would have come on local taxation beyond the £140,000 fixed in the Act.

Major G. DAVIES: In rising to address the House for the first time, I do not forget the wise words spoken by Mr. Speaker on his recent re-election to office, when he informed us that it was more difficult to listen than to speak. Therefore, I shall not crave the indulgence of the House. I am one of those who felt disappointment at the proposals outlined by the Minister of Agriculture, because I had hoped to have heard something that would have had more definite and immediate repercussion on the position of the agricultural labourer. We all feel that some immediate treatment should be devised. I do not wish to deal with the proposals of the late Government in this respect, except to say that they did hold out some immediate prospect of dealing with the subject, whereas the proposals of the present Government do not seem to bear on any immediate solution of this trying question. Those of us who live in rural and agricultural constituencies know the difficulties which face, not only the farmer, but the agricultural labourer, in making both ends meet, and we feel the vital necessity of
some definite proposals from the Government which will enable us to deal with this matter. What is the point at issue? It is the efficiency of the agricultural industry; it is the dealing with this crisis; it is the assisting of those who are passing through the crisis to get a share of comparative prosperity. Unless that is done, all these things that we want to do, such as raising the remuneration and improving the conditions of the agricultural labourer, are impossible under present conditions.
It has been pointed out from this side of the House that co-operation was the only apparent alternative to such a solution as having large and extensive farms and what might be called big factories—everything done on a large scale. I have had the experience of seeing one of these agricultural problems worked out on precisely those lines. Our aim is efficiency, and if the present condition of lack of organisation or co-operation means lack of efficiency, economic forces will compel us to try to follow the lines of least resistance in order to discover the best way of dealing with the problem. While the method of co-operation outlined by the Ministry may assist to a certain extent, it is not the line which is consonant with the efficiency of the industry, looked at merely from that point of view. As is well known, the bulk of the farmers of the country are farming on a small scale, and a very large number farm on a very small scale. From the business point of view that means enormous overhead costs of administration. On each farm of, say, 100 acres, you have an administrative body in the person of the farmer and his more skilled employés. When a man has a small dairy farm, with a workman to look after it, he could increase the number of stock that the farm's stockman is looking after if his farm were larger. There may be another adjoining farmer who has such an additional man. I am not now talking from the point of view of providing labour, but from the point of view of efficiency.
If we wish to develop on the lines of the greatest efficiency we must diminish these overhead charges. The logical outcome of that is to go in for farming on a large scale, the elimination of unnecessary hedge-rows and ditches, and the placing of the whole thing on a basis which would justify enormous capital expenditure on tractors and similar
implements, which the small farmer is not justified in buying. But on the other side there comes the interest of the State, which is something greater than the efficiency of the industry, taking the long view. Is it better to have these large farms, with comparatively few employed, or that there should be a numerous, self-supporting and independent peasant population in the country? From the point of view of the welfare of the State, that is the ideal of each one of us. The difficulty is how to identify it with the forces of economic development in the world as we see it to-day. One of the great difficulties of co-operation is this: In many cases it is a three-fold business. It has been said to-day that people are prone to try to teach the farmer his business, and that the farmer knows his business better than his would-be teachers. But co-operation is not farming—it is another business. If you want to run a co-operative business efficiently, you want the most efficient business man to run it, and he is not the farmer.
Take the case of co-operative bacon factories. There is the man who produces the pig; there is the man who makes it into bacon; and there is the man who ultimately distributes the bacon to the consumer. These three businesses are different businesses. The difficulty in co-operation, from the farmer point of view, is that we all have different ideas as to what is the best and the only right thing. Therefore, without control of the small farmer who is to be a co-operative member of a society, without control of what he shall do, he will produce whatever he favours. Then we are thrown back again for efficiency to the question, How can there be some form of economic control of the farmer to compel him, even against his wishes, to fall in with what those who have had greater opportunities for scientific training indicate are the best lines for him to follow? These are large and very broad questions, and, as has been indicated to-day, any form of co-operation, before it is actually put into operation, wants to be thought out from many points of view very carefully.
I do not think that any great or immediate result is likely to come for the farmer or the farm labourer. That is
why I am so disappointed. All these matters of scientific development, better types of wheat and other cereals, more scientific fertilisation of the soil, new methods as the result of experiments at Rothamsted—all these are excellent and vital, but they must take time and they may take months or even years. Meanwhile, we are faced with the crying problem of the crisis in the agricultural industry. While I shall give my support whole-heartedly to the proposals of the Minister, I deplore the fact that something more definite has not been given to us to-day.

Captain BOWYER: May I, with great respect, congratulate my hon. Friend who has just spoken upon his very admirable speech? I feel certain that agriculture and the interests of agriculture have gained a very valuable recruit and an accession to their forces in this House. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Royce). I followed him with the greater interest the further he proceeded with his speech, but just at the moment when he had my attention most concentrated, unfortunately, he sat down. He was saying, contrary to the views held by most of those who sit beside him, that the most successful farmer was the individualist.

Mr. ROYCE: I do not think that I went quite so far as that. I said that it was difficult for the most successful farmers to embark on new methods.

Captain BOWYER: The hon. Member went on to say how little actual help the agricultural worker seemed likely to get out of the proposals of the Government. That is a view which appears clearly from the speeches made this afternoon, and it is shared on all sides of the House. But the hon. Member did not proceed to say what should be done, and that was the matter to which, most of all, I wanted him to address his mind. It is so true that one cannot represent a great agricultural constituency without being appalled, as one travels about, at the rates of wages with which the agricultural workers have to be content.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now travelling rather wide. We are dealing with the question of co-operation.

Captain BOWYER: I was only mentioning that matter apropos the fact that
the agricultural worker does not seem likely to get much out of these proposals. The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) made a very interesting speech, and commented on the fact that money would not be advanced at a lower percentage of interest than 5 per cent. That seemed to me to offer a very interesting subject for discussion, because, as he said, there are always the banks with which the agricultural community can deal. Many farmers have told me that they prefer to deal with a bank rather than with any credit scheme, because with a bank they get one thing, and that is absolute secrecy and confidential treatment. But if the right hon. Gentleman recommends that the Government should advance this money at a lower rate than 5 per cent. I can see that the Minister of Agriculture will be up against the dictum of the Prime Minister the other day, that the Government is against a policy of subsidies. It is quite clear that if you advance money at 3 or 4 per cent., in effect, it is subsidising the industry.
The more I read about co-operation and the more I listen to speeches on it, the more astonishing to me becomes the difference between the theory and the practice on the subject. In theory, of course, there is nothing so satisfactory or so obviously right as co-operation. But in practice how different it is! I remember about four years ago, soon after I first came into the House, I went to my constituency and tried to start a co-operative movement among the farmers in one portion of the division. Very skilful speakers came down and addressed a very well-attended meeting, but in the end the result was practically nil. Man after man who came to the meeting said, "Well, I always dealt with such and such a man"—naming the middleman who supplied him with fertilisers and so forth—"and my father did so before me." It seems that every farmer is a conservative, and is suspicious of making any change in his methods of farming. The Linlithgow Report brings out the difficulties so clearly, that I may quote one sentence:
The application of co-operative organisation to farming generally is indeed far less straightforward and simple than is popularly supposed. One difficulty is the independence of the farmer himself, who, by tradition and environment, is accustomed to depend upon his own efforts. The British farmer is intensely individualistic; he does not
willingly surrender his own judgment, or delegate his authority to others.
If I may, as shortly as possible, make a suggestion to the Minister, it will be on these lines. Much as I welcome any scheme on the lines of co-operation, I would point out to him certain considerations, indicated in a letter received by me, within the past hour, from the Buckinghamshire County Branch of the National Farmers' Union. They represent what, in their opinion, is the greatest help which the farmers can receive in the difficulties against which they are at present fighting, and it is quite true that if you want to help the industry as a whole, the farmer is the pivot man, because how can the farmer pay good wages to the labourer unless he himself is keeping his head above water? The letter to which I refer is as follows:
I am instructed by the Executive Committee to call your attention to the following resolution.—'In order to prevent unscrupulous persons from selling chilled meat as fresh meat, or imported meat as English, and to protect the consumer generally and in the interests of the British grazier and feeder, the Government should be asked at once to promote legislation, either to provide that all imported meat should be properly stamped with the country of origin in sufficient parts to prevent fraud, or that, preferably, legislation should be passed forbidding the sale of any imported meat, frozen, chilled or fresh, in the same shop as English meat.'
If you wish to help the man who is producing something in agriculture, surely one of the first steps to be taken is to see that other people do not delude the public, that they are producing that which he produces, when, in fact, the article which they put forward is not home produced at all, but comes from abroad.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is going outside the subject under discussion.

Captain BOWYER: I recognise, Sir, that I am on the verge. I will not develop the subject any further, and I thank you for allowing me to go as far as I have gone.

Viscount WOLMER: While we, on this side of the House, welcome anything the Government can do to help co-operation in agriculture, we do not believe the agricultural problem is to be solved in that way. Co-operation has been tried in countless instances in this country, and, on the whole, the
result has been exceedingly discouraging. There have been some successes, but far more failures. If the Government can do anything to help it, so much the better, but I shall put to the Committee one instance in which co-operation has been tried on an exceedingly big scale, with results which are not very encouraging. I do not know if the Committee realise that the co-operative societies, with which hon. Members of the Socialist party are so much identified, are probably the biggest farmers in the country, and are certainly among the biggest landowners in England. I saw the accounts of the "Co-ops.," as they are familiarly termed, up to the year 1921, and from these figures it would appear that in 1921 they owned 60,000 acres, and were farming 72,000 acres, and on their farming operations in that year they incurred a loss of £350,000.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the Noble Lord mean that that is the actual amount lost by the Co-operative "Wholesale Societies, or is it accounted for to any extent by depreciation?

Viscount WOLMER: Depreciation was counted in, but that simply means that the accounts were properly kept

Mr. ALEXANDER: Would the Noble Lord regard as losses repayments of sums taken from reserve?

Viscount WOLMER: I cannot answer that question off-hand, but I am certain the accounts were kept in a proper manner, and that every depreciation which should have been written off, was written off, as every other farmer, who keeps his accounts properly, must do. When we speak of the farming losses of the last few-years we include depreciation, and any sums that were owing to the reserve fund and the like were, no doubt, properly accounted for. I do not suppose there is the slightest difference between the way in which these accounts were kept, and the way in which any farmer, who understands his business, would keep his accounts. It strikes me that the loss of over £5 an acre, by a great organisation farming on a huge scale, with the accumulated experience of years behind it as well as some of the ablest minds in the country, is significant, and if they have not been able to make farming pay during these difficult years, surely the Committee need be
under no illusion that the problem of agriculture is to be solved merely by assisting co-operation. Agriculture does not pay because it is taxed in a way in which agriculture is not taxed in any other part of the world. It is taxed, as no other industry in the country is taxed. It is taxed on its raw material, which is land, and it is taxed three times over on Schedule A, Schedule E and the rates. These adverse conditions have to be overcome if agriculture is to be made prosperous. I do not deny that co-operation may help, and I welcome it. After the Linlithgow Report nobody can say that co-operation will not help. But although it will help, it will not suffice to make agriculture prosperous, and until agriculture is prosperous, the agricultural labourer will not receive a fair wage. At the present time he is living on a sweated wage, because the industry is in an unfair position, and is subjected to difficulties which are unknown in other industries, and it is the agricultural labourer who suffers more than anybody else.

Mr. BUXTON: The Committee have given to these proposals a very kind reception which I acknowledge with great gratitude, and I think I might now ask hon. Members to allow the Vote to be passed as there is very urgent business yet to be taken. It is not, however, for me to press the Committee, and I am entirely in their hands. In making this suggestion I wish to answer some of the questions which have been addressed to me on points of fact, and, as I acknowledge with thankfulness, have not been in criticism of my proposals. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott) asked whether we could not increase the limit of £10,000, which is proposed under this scheme. I point to the fact that applications for larger sums will be welcomed and carefully considered by the Committee under the Trade Facilities Act. I was also asked whether there had been any applications under that Act so far. There have been three applications for a bacon factory, a sugar factory, and an auction mart respectively. The hon. Member for the United Universities (Mr. Fisher) raised a point in connection with the Committee of Research on the question of foot-and-mouth
disease, and I shall take a very careful note of his suggestion that the reference should clearly include the question of the source of infection, and his other point in regard to the ratio of veterinary surgeons to stock will receive a very careful consideration. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) referred to the necessity of consulting the farmers' organisation. I have taken an early opportunity of meeting the leading men or the National Farmers' Union, and I shall take as many opportunities of doing so as they will give me. I welcome heartily their willingness to discuss matters fully.
The hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Pattinson) raised an interesting point as to the liming of heavy lands, and asked if there was any scheme of contributing to help the farmers in this respect. We all know that nothing is more wanted than more lime on the lands of this country, but apart from this scheme of co-operative help, we must not forget there was a scheme initiated last year for credit societies, and these should be the means of raising capital for such purposes as this—although there are many other purposes very urgent at the moment, such as the re-stocking of farms denuded by foot-and-mouth disease. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Simpson) mentioned a point which arises from the wording of the Supplementary Estimate with regard to the anticipated saving of £25,000, which was thought to be somewhat mysteriously included under the head of "Improvement of Cultivation of Land." That relates to money provided in respect of land which was forced to be cultivated during the War, and for which an unnecessarily large provision was estimated. I was also asked whether it was not possible to reduce the rate of interest upon these loans. I should point out that these loans are not on all-fours with the loans made under the Trade Facilities Act. These are long-term loans, and we all know, whereas bankers on the whole are financing farmers for short term purposes in a very adequate degree, to raise a mortgage is much more difficult now than it was before the War. Solicitors are not so keen on that kind of business, and these advances at 5 per cent. are such as a great many men would have difficulty in obtaining from
private sources, and whether the rate will be reduced or not it is a contribution. I note, with regret, that disappointment is felt by some hon. Members that I have not to-day brought forward a scheme for the immediate alleviation of the farmers' difficulties, but I would point out that we are only dealing with one particular proposal, and that I should not be in order if I were to go in detail into other proposals which I hope I may sometime be able to unfold.
7.0 P.M.
I found myself yesterday at the Shire Horse Show in the happy position of being described on all hands as a better friend to heavy horse breeders than my predecessor. I am glad to have been able to have done something in that direction, and I may be able to give other items later on. Farmers are being helped by co-operative societies in Norfolk and Suffolk. The Ipswich Society is actually helping many hundreds of men to pay a better wage, or to employ more men, than they would if that society did not exist.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: I have been induced to rise on this occasion by this question of foot-and-mouth disease. It seems to me that it has been played with long enough. There has been a wholly new development in Kent within the last two or three days. It would seem, from information I have been able to obtain, that cattle have been imported somewhere from the Midlands into Chatham, and that they have come from a district where there is, or has recently been, an outbreak of the disease. If that be so, I desire to charge the Board with apparent negligence in this case. There you have, as it seems to me, a clearly preventive case which ought never to have broken out in a wholly new district, and which is calculated to do great damage to the farming industry there, and you are increasing the expenditure which is being made on this cattle disease. I want the Minister to tell me whether it is true, as is reported, that these cattle came from a district in the Midlands where the disease recently broke out, and, if so, to tell me what steps the Board have taken in the matter. I should also like to know how long it is since the disease broke out in the Midlands from which these cattle were brought to Chatham. What steps has he taken, or have been taken, to ascertain
the history of the cattle? Had the outbreak actually occurred before the cattle were sent to Chatham? What has been done in reference to the trucks? What has been done in reference to the new district in which it has broken out? Has anything been done, and, if so, what, to disinfect the farms?
I want to impress upon the Minister that, while he is pursuing his policy of slaughter, he is allowing new outbreaks to occur throughout the country to an alarming extent and at very great expense. I want him to bear in mind that we are just at the period when all the spring fairs and sales are beginning. Cattle begin to change hands now. They are coming out of the sheds, and are going out on to the pastures. What proposals has the Minister seriously in hand to try to prevent the contagion spreading in this way right throughout the country? If these cattle came to Chatham from an area which had been recently infected, surely the Minister should be in a position to tell me how long it is since there was an outbreak in that area. Has he taken steps to close that area for a longer time, so as to prevent the chance of the disease spreading? In sum and substance, as far as I can see, nothing is done effectively to deal with these cases. From an older centre where there has been disease, the disease is allowed to spread to fresh centres.

Mr. BECKER: I have listened to this Debate all the way through with very great interest, and it seems to me that the Members who represent farming constituencies are unanimous on this matter. Farmers, when they are unanimous, are generally so for a very good reason. Farmers generally are unanimous when they can see a prospect of making money out of the matter about which they are unanimous. I represent a residential constituency in which the people have to pay anything from 8d. to 1s. 4d. for a cauliflower. As far as I can see, this scheme of co-operation is brought forward for the purpose of allowing the producer to get more money for his goods, and so that he can sell his goods in the best market. It has been said many times in the House this afternoon that Members do not take any interest in agricultural Bills, and that the House is also empty when questions of agriculture arise. I
think it is because the agriculturists do not attempt to look at the question from the point of view of the housewife. They look at it purely and simply from the point of view of how much money they can get out of the public, and out of the Government, and out of anybody else.
Here we have a scheme backed by the Government, and I can see visions of the time when they will pour out untold millions. There was a time when it started off with a nominal sum of £10. I wonder how many noughts will be added on before this scheme is finally thrown up. The object, as one hon. Member has already said, is this. "Why trouble to break the ring? Why not build the co-operative societies big enough, and then you can get inside the ring?" The general trend of this whole Debate is, "Why not get together and put prices up?" It is very desirable that farmers should have more assistance than they are getting. They are not getting enough for their produce, I admit. The arguments I have heard to-day, as far as I understand them, are that by this scheme of co-operation you can save the wholesaler's profit. I do not know much about it. I have only listened to the Debate, but is not this a place to come and learn? Is it not a place to listen to a Debate and join in from your own point of view, and take the facts? I admit that I do not take many facts from the other side of the House.
You are trying, by Government support, to build up a vast number of uneconomic or economic co-operative societies all through England. You are going to make a man take his eggs to market. You are going to sell them through one channel. What is the ultimate object of all this? Supposing this principle is carried to its logical conclusion. I think the Minister himself will agree that, if this is carried out in its entirety, the whole agricultural produce of England will be sold through co-operative societies. What would be the position then? It would be exactly like a trust. It would be exactly the same as the worst system of American trusts. The object is to force prices up, to aid co-operative societies to sell cheaper than ordinary firms. Are not co-operative societies always putting their prices up a little and trying to get the topmost price? They sell you an imitation of somebody else's stuff, saying it is just as good, at ½d. less. The object of the co-operative
societies is to force up prices to their utmost ability so that they can pay the greatest dividends. If the farmers all co-operate in their selling, they will co-operate with the object of getting the best price possible. So we find a Socialist Government doing their utmost to induce the simple farmer, who is prepared to carry on year after year and sell in the cheapest market, to co-operate. They come along and say "The farmers are selling too cheaply. We are going to get them to co-operate. We are going to send experts down from the Ministry of Agriculture to show them how to do it." What are experts? They are men who have made a failure probably, in this case, of farming themselves. They will come along and rig up the prices. Here the Government are deliberately going ahead with a scheme, under the nice name of "co-operation"—it is a charming name and sounds so nice and innocent—in order to induce the simple farmer to drive his prices up against the consumer, and they are taking the taxpayers' money and lending it to the farmer at what I consider a cheap rate of interest.
This is not the way to help agriculture. I would rather give the money than lend it. I would rather subsidise wheat or something like that. If that meant £5,000,000 or £10,000,000 a year, you know where you are; but you do not know where you are going to land yourself with this scheme. What is going to be the result in 10 years' time? Dotted all over this country will be sausage factories, bacon factories, and so on. All over the country will be found these tiny factories all having borrowed money from my right hon. Friend, and none of them being able to pay the money back. Then we shall come here with a similar Vote to this, "Money lost on co-operative societies." Is it going to benefit the consumer? Is it going to benefit the farmer? It is too small a thing anyhow. It is not the kind of thing that is going to reduce the price of food to the consumer.
In my constituency during the last Election I heard Gentlemen opposite say, Why not smash up the trusts? Well, why are you not doing it? Why are you not going for the milk trust? Why not come up against the big people, who really are strangling the farmers? Why potter about doing little things? Why not "bust" these trusts, break them, go for
them? I think this co-operation is simply imitating the trusts. In the name of Socialism, which he represents, surely the right hon. Gentleman should come along and really help the farmers by attacking the big monopolies that hold up the food of the people. I have to pay about 10d. or 11d. in a shop for a cabbage, and that is what the Government should try and deal with. You have converted me by talking about it for so long. Cut into these men, and do not come along with these two penny ha'penny little things. How many Labour Members have spoken on this question to-day? They are shy of it. It is ludicrously stupid. I hope I am not being unfairly critical, but is there not something greater for this Government to do? It is not going to be in long.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must deal with the subject of the Vote.

Mr. BECKER: I wanted to show that this is such a little thing for the Government to do. The Minister makes a statement about how he is going to run egg-selling centres and pig factories, and the people to-morrow morning will read it in the papers and say, "How wonderful! Now everything will be all right." It is hailed by everyone in this House as one of the most wonderful movements ever brought in to help the starving working men on the land and the poor downtrodden farmers, but it is a very little thing. What can be the object of getting the Wholesale Co-operative Society to come in and assist, as I have heard to-day that it should? The Co-operative Wholesale Society is just as much a trading concern as any other. The object is simply to get the best price possible, and I make this last appeal to the Minister, when he is dealing with this question, to bear in mind, that before he lends a single penny to any factory or to any centre or any market, before he thinks of lending any of the taxpayers' money for any of these sort of stunts, he will take care to see that prices to the consumers of stuff sold through these centres will be materially less than those of similar goods from other sources. How can such a scheme be justified if the prices to the consumer through these organisations are not going to be cheapened?
That must be the guiding feature, and I hope and trust—I am speaking purely for myself, of course—that in this question of Government-controlled co-operative societies, which are the thin end of the wedge of Government control of every other society, the Government will see that the consumer gets the advantage of all this expensive system, which we are going to work of officials and inspectors and others who are going to come and look after the farmers. I feel convinced that the people will be grateful to the Government if, by this co-operative movement, they can reduce prices to the consumer and not force them up, as it seems to me will be the inevitable result of the present proposal.

Sir G. HOHLER: I would like to ask the Minister to answer the questions which I raised just now, and which I consider were of great importance.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: There is very little information to give the hon. and learned Member on this question. This outbreak, to which he referred, is one of the unfortunate experiences that have arisen. The cattle when they left appeared to be very healthy and suitable for moving, and no trace of the disease was discovered till they had reached their destination, and the Ministry, as far as humanly possible—

Sir G. HOHLER: Could the hon. Gentleman tell me if it is true that they came from an infected area? That is my information, which I got locally last night.

Mr. SMITH: I do not think that is possible, because I do not think any cattle are allowed to be moved from an infected area.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS II.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, including Loans to Agricultural Co-operative Societies, Grants for Agricultural Education and Training, certain Grants-in-Aid, and certain Services arising out of the War.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. W. Adamson): I might explain that this Vote is taken out of its place on the Order Paper to enable us to get the Vote to-night early, and I may say that, owing to the kindness of the other parties in the House, who have consented to this arrangement, we are able to move the Vote at this stage.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt him for one moment, in order to make it clear that the arrangement is that the intervening Votes, starting from the Colonial Services down to the Northern Ireland Grants-in-Aid, will go down for Monday; that after this Vote we take the Post Office Vote, and, of course, the Ways and Means Resolution in Committee, and that then the Government will adjourn the House?

Mr. ADAMSON: I think that is the arrangement. This is a token Estimate, which asks that an additional sum should be taken under each of two sub-heads amounting to £5. The first of these subheads, "M.M.," relates to loans to agricultural co-operative societies, and it is designed to assist agriculture Such loans were recommended by the Linlithgow Committee on the distribution and prices of agricultural produce. It is proposed that the loan should be made by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for the acquisition and improvement of premises and for working capital. Provision for this purpose will be included in the Board's Estimate for 1924–25. In the meantime, in order to enable the necessary arrangements to proceed, this Estimate is submitted, in order to obtain the approval of Parliament for the principle. In the case of new societies, it is proposed that the loans to be granted by the Board should not exceed half the total capital considered by the Board to be necessary for the working of the society or the sum which would be advanced by a willing lender on the security of heritable subjects possessed or acquired by the society. The loan will not exceed the lesser of these amounts. In the case of existing societies, the amount of loan will not exceed half the sum estimated to be spent on the proposed improvements or extensions of the premises and plant.
The second sub-head, M2, relates to agricultural organisation societies. A Note appended to the Board's Estimate for 1923–24 stated that the maximum grant to the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society would not exceed two and a half times the income from other sources. After examination, it has been found inadvisable to fetter the maximum grant in this way. It is now proposed that while a society must make every endeavour to secure income from other sources, the grant from the Board of Agriculture should not be restricted by the foregoing condition. The desirability of encouraging the work of agricultural organisation in Scotland at the present time is generally recognised, and this token sum is inserted under sub-head M2 in order to bring the alteration in the Note on the Estimates for 1923–24 to the notice of Parliament. These two small token Votes raise matters that are very important to agriculture in Scotland, and I hope that the Committee will agree to my having this Vote, because, as I understand it, unless I can get it to-night, it is lost for a considerable time to come. These two matters are of such importance to agriculture that I hope the Members of the Committee will see their way to give me what I am asking.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I was very much interested in the speech, short as it was, of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, and I think I can speak for my colleagues in Scotland in saying that we too are anxious that he should get this Vote. We are deeply interested in the co-operative movement in Scotland, and also in the organisation societies. My right hon. Friend said that this is indeed an important subject, and so it is. I can quite realise that, owing to the fact that my right hon. Friend has only recently come into office, he has not been able to give us a fuller account of the work done under these two sub-heads. I am not going to press him for a full account at the present moment, but I will promise him that when the real Estimate comes to be discussed we shall demand a fuller and more complete account of these two important movements. But there is one question I should like to ask him under sub-head M2. I see there is only one organisation society mentioned, the
Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society. May I ask my right hon. Friend if that is the only organisation of this kind which is receiving a Government grant? I understood there were at least two more of these organisation societies, and I should like my right hon. Friend to explain why it is that this society alone gets so large a grant from the Government, and why other societies, if there are any, do not get a grant at all.

Mr. FALCONER: I confess I do not share the satisfaction with the statement of my right hon. Friend who moved this Vote. I am not concerned with regard to the past; nor, in one sense, is he. He is not responsible for it. But I am concerned, and I think everybody interested in agriculture in Scotland is concerned, to know how much money is to be spent in the promotion of agricultural societies and agricultural organisation societies, and also how it is to be spent. There is a general assumption on the part of those who have not had much experience of agriculture, that, to my mind, exaggerates the possibilities of doing good by establishing co-operative societies. All that can be done is to the good. The more that is done the bettor. Undoubtedly it helps, both as regards purchasing and selling, that farmers should combine, and make the best they can in combination as regards the terms for purchases, or as regards the prices they get for their produce. It is often supposed that the difficulties which have hitherto made the progress of agricultural co-operative societies so slow, are on account of some inherent quality in the mind of the farmer which makes him unwilling to combine in any co-operative movement. It is quite true that the farmer is an individualist, but the difficulties are much more serious than that, because I am sure in Scotland, if the farmer were satisfied that the difficulties in connection with co-operation could be satisfactorily overcome, they would be very willing to give it a trial, and to proceed to develop it as far as they possibly could. But the difficulties really are, so far as the question of marketing produce is concerned, dependent on the business conditions which anyone who endeavours to carry out the co-operative movement for the sale of farm produce has to face.
In the first place, the farms are very different in situation, in soil, in climate, in their distance from a market, in the particular markets where they sell their produce, in local markets or in markets at a distance. That creates a really great difficulty in establishing anything like a comprehensive co-operative scheme for dealing with their produce. In addition, it is very difficult to deal with most farm products by pooling them. In the case of milk, the farmers in a district can send it to a creamery or central stores, and it can be tested and valued, and a standard can be fixed which will regulate the distribution of the money received for the common supply of milk. It is also possible, I daresay, to have eggs graded, and prices fixed, which would be satisfactory and fair to the different people who provide them. And, of course, with regard to dairy produce and eggs, there is not the same difficulty with regard to marketing. You can arrange to sell them either in the nearest market or in the most suitable market, which usually, in Scotland, up to now, is not very distant. But when you come to the other products of a farm, you find much greater difficulty. How, for instance, can you pool the potato crop—a very large element of farm produce in Scotland—sell them, and distribute the receipts among the farmers? I do not know whether it has ever been done, and I do not see how it can be done, because the qualities of the different classes of potatoes vary so enormously. The same with regard to beef, mutton and other products, if you are to give satisfaction to the man who is producing the very best quality.
I do not put this forward merely for the purpose of discouraging any effort that can profitably and well be made for dealing with such things as can be marketed by co-operative effort. I rose, in the first place, for the purpose of getting a more complete statement of what the Secretary for Scotland is going to do, how much money he is going to spend, and what effect he thinks it will have on agriculture in Scotland. I do it for another reason also. I would like to impress upon him and the Committee that it is hopeless to base a reform such as is needed to put agriculture in a satisfactory position upon the efforts of co-operation. They will be slow of growth.
As everyone connected with the co-operative movement knows, it will take a long time before you can secure the management which is essential to make a scheme of co-operation a success. The subject in Scotland presents so many difficulties that I venture to say the best brains and the best organising minds that can be got for the purpose are needed, and that means dealing with the problem on a large scale. Otherwise you cannot expect to get the business capacity which is necessary to make it a success. That means the co-operative movement must develop gradually, until it reaches a point at which you can hope to secure the right kind of management, and the extensive organisation, and make your arrangements in all the large markets to which your products will have to go on a really big scale.
I would like to say, also, although I cannot develop it, I think, that the first fundamental principle of Scottish agriculture for securing a really well-founded system of general co-operation is that you should give to the farmer security of tenure. He must be assured that if he puts his energy, enterprise and capital into the development of his farm, he will reap the benefit himself, and not be liable to be evicted. Farming is a business, and people cannot reasonably be asked to spend their money, and a large part of their lives, in building up a highly productive concern, in establishing connections for the sale of their products, unless they are insured against the risk of being deprived of all that on which they have spent their money and energy. You must have security of tenure and fair rent, if you are going to pursue farming on business principles. I believe, also, before co-operative farming in Scotland can secure very substantial improvement, you have to get a much more complete system of technical education for those going into farming. At the present time you have colleges, but no schools to which the sons of farmers and other people wishing to take up farming can go, as in other countries, to learn the technique of farming, and get to know what methods are adopted in other parts of the country, or in other countries. If you give a man security of tenure, and give a young Scotsman a thorough technical education, I think you can trust him to get the most out of it. There are other elements in
any complete and comprehensive programme for agriculture, but I would not be in order, probably, in pursuing the subject. All I want to say is, that I am disappointed the Secretary for Scotland has not given us more information to enable us to form an idea as to how his scheme is going to work out. I also warn him not to get into his head the idea that he can completely reform the agriculture of Scotland by giving grants to co-operative societies or agricultural organisation societies, however deserving they may be either those which exist, or those which he is going to bring into existence.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOHN GILMOUR: I only desire to say a very few word on this Vote, but I should like to assure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland that I welcome, not only the provision he is making now, but also the general tone in which he addressed himself to this important subject. I can imagine nothing of greater importance to agriculture in Scotland than that we should do what we can to develop what is, perhaps, only one side of the great agricultural industry, but to those of us who, for a number of years, have been working hard to try and spread the knowledge of agricultural organisation, and what it might mean, particularly to the smallholders in our county, it is indeed most refreshing and encouraging to find that the somewhat hampering restrictions that have hitherto been made on grants should now, in a Measure, be removed. May I say, in regard to that, that this is, as I know from personal knowledge, largely the outcome of the work of a late Member of this House, the much respected and lamented late president of the Organisation Society. His work for agriculture, and, indeed, for many other things in Scotland, is known to Scottish Members, and I am sure it is only right that such work should be acknowledged. I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer) has said with regard to the difficulties of spreading agricultural organisations. All the same, those of us who are interested in this subject mean to pursue the policy, and it is because we welcome that, that I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon this present Motion.

Mr. ADAMSON: I want to thank hon. Members, and particularly the Scottish
Members of the Committee, for the restraint they have put upon themselves in order that we may get this Vote to-night. There are one or two criticisms, however, that were made and one or two questions asked to which I should like to reply. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) asked me if there was only one agricultural organisation society which was to be given the benefit of the grant. That is so, because, I understand, there is only one agricultural organisation society in Scotland. I understand that the Smallholders' Organisation Society is now defunct. My hon. Friend the Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer) complained that I had not given sufficient information on certain matters, and asked how much money was to be spent on the development of the particular ideas to which he referred. I cannot tell him how much money will be spent at the moment; that will be provided for in a later Estimate. I trust we shall be able to get a substantial amount, for I am convinced that the development of the ideal referred to is one that will be welcomed in agriculture. My hon. Friend went on to deal with the necessity of developing co-operation in agriculture with a view to securing the best results. I agree. I think that in agriculture it is desirable for the best brains to be put into any scheme of co-operation and organisation, and I think that the agricultural communities are able to produce sufficient business capacity to make the co-operative ideal a success in agriculture just as it has been in other matters. He also suggested that in order to make agriculture successful we should have security of tenure. I agree; but that raises a different question, and a question that does not arise on the Vote that we are now busy with. He then went on to say further on that point—

Mr. MACPHERSON: Has my right hon. Friend nothing to say about security of tenure?

Mr. ADAMSON: All that I want to say further in answer to questions is that I am as anxious as hon. Members can possibly be that the farmer shall have security of tenure.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I hope not only for farmers. What about the working men?

Mr. ADAMSON: That raises a different matter.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman must not pursue that subject.

Mr. ADAMSON: The subject is an important one, but I bow to your ruling; and I can only hope that the Vote for which I am asking to-night will help those concerned. I think that is all the points that have been raised, but Major Entwistle, with your permission, I should like, in addition to what I have said, to make an intimation here that I consider to be of importance to agriculture in Scotland—to a portion of Scotland. Numerous questions have been put to me, and a deputation approached me as to what we were prepared to do in the way of meeting the need for seed-oats and seed-potatoes of the people who live in the Highlands and Islands, due to the distress that has arisen in consequence of two or three bad years, and the consequent destitution and poverty which exists. Unless seed is provided a greater disaster will follow. Hon. Members will perhaps remember what I have already said, that the Treasury have consented to grant—

Mr. RAWLINSON: Is this in order on a Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. MACPHERSON: On a point of Older. I submit that my right hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to speak about this matter, which is a very important one. What is the good of talking about co-operation if there is no seed to co-operate with next year?

Mr. ADAMSON: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will restrain himself for just a few minutes I shall be finished. I have intimated that the Treasury have consented to supply seed-oats and seed-potatoes at £1 a ton less than the cost, plus the cost of transit. Since then representations have been made to me, and I have made inquiries that have convinced me that that is not sufficient. I have made further representations to the Treasury on the question, and I am very glad to say that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has informed me within the last few minutes that an Estimate for the coming year of £100,000 for the supply of seed-oats and seed-potatoes for the people of the Highland and Islands
has been agreed to. I know, Sir, that I was not strictly within the limits of my Vote, but it was very important that the people should know at the earliest possible moment the announcement I have made, and I have taken advantage of this Vote to make the intimation.

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I, on behalf of the Scottish Members—if not out of order—take this opportunity of expressing our thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us where be considers the Highlands stop?

Question put, and agreed to.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

POST OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the salaries and expenses of the Post Office, including telegraphs and telephones.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): This matter was raised earlier in the week, and on that occasion the Committee desired information in regard to the Post Office Tube Railway, which was not at that time in my possession. Therefore the matter was adjourned to enable me to supply the Committee with that information. In order that we may not have hon. Members asking questions to-night on matters which were referred to in my statement on Monday, it may be necessary for me to repeat to a certain extent such statements as I then made, so that hon. Members will have the facts that I gave to the Committee on that, occasion. I was asked on Monday night whether the railway did actually exist or not, whether the tubes were round or square, and I hope I shall be able to enlighten Members to-night on any point on which they would like information.
8.0 P.M.
The Post Office Tube Railway extends from Paddington to Whitechapel, a distance of about six and a half miles. It passes under and connects with two railway stations, Paddington and Liverpool Street, and also with six of the largest sorting offices connected with the Post Office. The object of the construction of
this railway is to accelerate the distribution of the mails between the stations and the offices en route, to simplify the organisation within the sorting offices, and to secure more frequent and regular outlets which the railway will provide. In addition to that it will have the effect of relieving from much congestion the streets in Central London. The scheme for the railway was approved in 1913 by the House of Commons, and an Act, passed in that year, authorised the expenditure of £1,100,000 on the construction of this railway. The work was started in 1914. During the War progress was interferred with, as it was with most other undertakings. By the end of 1920, however, the whole of the tunnelling and generally speaking, the whole of the underground work had been completed with the exception of the permanent way, the electrical equipment, and provision of the rolling stock. In the latter part of 1920 when the tunnelling had been nearly completed—tenders were invited for the electrical equipment. The tenders were so high—the lowest, I think, being £650,000, as compared with the pre-War estimate of £156,000—that it was considered the price quoted was excessive, and so the work was not gone on with. Since then, the matter has been under review on several occasions, and in August of last year the late Government decided to put it into operation, to put the work in hand to help with the solution of the unemployment problem. The question has been raised as to the method of commencing this scheme. I have already said that the limit imposed by the Act of 1913 was £1,100,000. The latest estimate for completing and equipping this tube railway is £1,650,000. In order to secure that that additonal money shall be obtained, it was necessary to put down this Vote in order to have the matter discussed. I was asked on Monday last why we were seeking to put this money on the Estimate rather than get it by way of loan. That is a matter which is not within the decision of the Post Office, but rests with the Treasury, and the Treasury, after considering this matter for a considerable time, decided that the future cost should be borne on the Estimates of the Post Office, rather than obtained by way of loans, contending that it was good policy, as far as
practicable, to pay our way as we go along and not borrow unnecessarily. It will be necessary to incur large commitments, and this Supplementary Estimate had to be laid before the House in order to obtain authority from Parliament to exceed the limit laid down in the Act.
Already considerable commitments have been entered into. Well over £100,000 of commitments have been entered into by the letting of contracts with the authority of the Treasury, and the work is proceeding, and such commitments as become due are being met from the Civil Contingencies Fund, awaiting the authorisation of Parliament which is sought by this Vote. I think I told the Committee on Monday that tenders had been accepted and the work put in hand of completing the permanent way. Tenders have also been invited, but have not yet been accepted, for the electrical equipment of the undertaking. With reference to the wisdom of completing this undertaking, I would point out that we have at present a capital expenditure of something like £1,135,000 lying idle. To complete the railway and bring that capital into use is the object sought now by this Vote. The result will be to accelerate and simplify the distribution and handling of mails to relieve the congestion in the streets of central London. I would like to answer some questions which were put to me when this matter was under discussion before. First of all, as to the method of operation. This railway will be worked electrically and automatically. There will be no drivers and no persons will be employed in connection with the trains. The tunnel itself is 9 feet in diameter. There will be a double track on which will run steel wagons, each conveying about 10 cwts. of mails. It is estimated that something like 800 trains per day will run at a speed of about 34 miles an hour. Even when we have motor vans for the conveyance of mails, whatever the possible speed of the motor may be, it is held up by the traffic in the streets, so that you can seldom get more than five, six, or seven miles an hour out of it, whereas the underground trains will travel at 34 miles an hour.
The daily traffic handled by the railway will exceed 40,000 parcels, more than a quarter of a million of newspapers and packets, more than one and three-quarter millions of letters and postcards,
and the total traffic will amount to 750 tons of postal business each day. As a matter of fact, it is estimted that 60 per cent. of the total postal traffic of London will be carried on and dealt with by this railway. I would like also to say that the railway is to be constructed of such dimensions as to be able to cope with any increase of traffic that may take place in the next 40 or 50 years. I have been asked why it has been extended to Whitechapel. That was part of the original scheme, and there is a very good reason for extending it to that district, because in Whitechapel we have a very large sorting office which deals with the postal traffic of the whole of the East End of London, and great facilities in dealing with these mails will be achieved by this railway. Another question which hon. Members asked was whether any portion of this railway had been running up till now. One right hon. Gentleman spoke with an air of great authority on this subject, and declared that a part of the railway had been running from Paddington to the Post Office for many years past, and we were told that all it was doing was to convey postmen and run about with bags. As a matter of fact, no portion of this railway has yet been put in operation. All that has been completed is the mail tunnel. The permanent ways are now being made, and provision is being made for electrical equipment. Another point on which information was sought was as to whether it is intended to extend this railway in any direction. I gather that it was contemplated under the original scheme, that at some future date we might extend the railway to the North, and link up with Euston, King's Cross and St. Pancras. But no such extension is, at present, contemplated, and none of the expenditure now proposed is for that purpose.
Another hon. Gentleman desires to know whether fair wages are being paid on the work performed. I am sure that all the contracts that are being entered into contain the fair wages clause required by the House of Commons. Then I was asked to state how many men would be employed if this business proceeds or how many may be employed on the scheme. I will endeavour to get that information for the Committee, but it is difficult to get any reliable estimates on this point, because none of the work will be done by
direct labour. I can say this, that at present there are employed on the non electrical work, 85 persons, and in the near future there will be 200. In addition to these men there will be sub-contractors' men employed in the provision of more than 800 tons of iron and steelwork, 3,500 tons of cement, and 16,000 tons of ballast, and the men employed in carting these materials and the sleepers. It cannot be stated how many men will be employed in the manufacture and installation of the electrical equipment, but I think hon. Members will realise that the expenditure of something like £500,000 on this scheme must, in the nature of things, provide a considerable amount of employment. I would like just to refer to one other point, which is the financial position. As I stated on Monday, it was never estimated that this would be a scheme that would cheapen the work of the Post Office in dealing with the mails of London. Not speaking about labour and other costs, up to the time we take into account the principal charges and the repayments on the loan, there will be a net loss of £10,000 a year. But, as I have already said, the scheme is being operated on a basis to make provision for development in the future. Had this railway been constructed merely to meet the needs of to-day, it could have been worked at a profit, but in making provision for the future it has become more costly.

It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under STANDING ORDER No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL (BY ORDER).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. MILLS: I wish to put one or two points with reference to the rights of certain local authorities who exercise powers in land. The extension of a Bill of this character, giving to the company certain vested running rights over what
has hitherto been regarded as the rights of different councils, which I will name, of Haworth, Oakworth, Oxenhope, and Skipton, and the rural district councils of Keighley and Skipton. They are exercised in their minds with regard to the interpretation of the powers conferred upon the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, with regard to the prevention of the acquisition of rights of way over roads and footpaths on the property of the company. The Clause as it stands in the Bill provides that the exhibition of a notice by the company, stating that the way is a private road, shall be sufficient to prevent the public acquiring any right of way by prescription or user, and also to negative any presumption that the way has been dedicated to the public.
If we can get some guarantee that the rights of these councils will be recognised then my hon. Friends associated with me in this protest will refrain from any further opposition. I would like those responsible for this Bill to give us that assurance because great corporations which are in the habit of rushing through this House all the powers they desire are in the habit of treading underfoot the rights of minorities. In this case they happen to be the rights of small Yorkshire villages, and for these reasons I hope the promoters will see their way to meet these councils in this matter.

Viscount ELVEDEN: Some time ago the Southend and Tilbury Railway was taken over by the Midland Company under all sorts of solemn pledges which have never yet been dealt with. Although the promoters of this Bill have been in possession of the property, and had no doubt the takings of this railway for the last 12 months, they have not up to the present taken any steps to obtain powers to deal with the promises which they made 12 months ago. I would like to bring to the notice of the House these unpleasant facts because previously I have always spoken as a railway director. But I now associate myself with the position which has been taken up in regard to the neglect in carrying out promises which have been given.
I also know from inside and from the fact that I was associated with several Railway Bills in the Parliament before the last that railway officials have had enormous work to organise their staff, and bring before this House a proper measure
for dealing with a very complicated situation. I am aware that that takes a considerable amount of time. I do feel, however, that I am justified now in repeating that again they have pledged themselves on this matter to the position taken up by their predecessors. I have had another letter on this question, and the only thing I need read is the last paragraph, in which they reiterate that they are under obligations, that they have neglected them for many years, but that does not alter the fact that people are still coming up from these places standing in the railway carriages. The letter says:
I am, however, authorised to say that the company will at the earliest possible moment, and under any circumstances by the end of the present year, formulate a scheme which may, of course, involve further application to Parliament, for carrying out the obligations of the company in regard to the improvement of the passenger service between London and Southend in the best possible way to the advantage of all concerned.
(Signed) H. G. BURGESS.
I am sure if they do relieve the difficulties of Southend, they will remedy the difficulties of the other districts which lie between Southend and the Metropolis I know it is a complicated question, and I appreciate that it is not made any simpler by the fact that there are various ways out. Unfortunately we have no power to deal with railway companies who obtain powers by false pretences. This would be serious if it went on for any length of time, and for these reasons I think Parliament should consider this matter very carefully.

Mr. HANNON: With regard to the points raised by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills), I would like to say that I understand the representatives of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway have had conferences with the footpaths' association, and other bodies concerned in the social amenities of the districts affected, and that notice will be given to them of any change. An arrangement will be come to which will satisfy the quite reasonable objections which have been raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite. With regard to the observations which have been made by my Noble Friend the Member for Southend-on-Sea (Viscount Elveden), I would like to congratulate him on the energetic way in which he has looked after the interests
of his constituents in this matter. He has for a considerable time past taken a very active and wholesome interest, if I may say so, in improving the services to Southend, and, indeed, has been successful in doing something which does not very frequently fall to the lot of Members of this House, namely, in getting definite guarantees from a rail way company that the services shall be improved, and improved substantially, within a reasonable time. He has just read to the House an assurance on the part of the deputy general manager of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, that, before the close of the present year, the Southend services shall be substantially improved. In this House, when railway Bills are before us, there is not, as a general rule, very much sympathy with the railways, but in this case it is gratifying to notice that every difficulty raised against this Bill in its earlier stages has been surmounted, and that the guarantee given by the railway authorities satisfies my Noble Friend who represents this important constituency. It was, of course, extremely difficult for the Midland Railway Company, which is now a constituent part of the new group, to carry out this scheme of electrification during the past 12 years. Criticisms have been levelled against the Company because they had been dilatory in giving effect to the undertakings which they gave when the Act of 1912 went through; but it must be remembered that Sir Guy Granet, whose position in the railway world is of outstanding importance—

Mr. BUCHANAN: Oh!

Mr. HANNON: My hon. Friend, with his superior Scottish intelligence, will appreciate that. Sir Guy Granet took the opportunity at once to prepare a scheme for the electrification of this line. He appointed competent engineers to prepare a special report for his company, and, indeed, he did more—he went personally to the United States to study the electrification of railways in that country, taking with him his engineers, so that he might have the very latest knowledge of the most efficient systems of electrification as applied to the needs of this line. After this elaborate report had been prepared, and Sir Guy Granet, with his engineers, had returned to
England, the War broke out. Of course, the whole of our transport system at once came under the purview of the State, and it was impossible for the Midland or any other railway to carry out obligations of that kind during the War. When the War was over, we were at once confronted with the problem of the amalgamation of railways, which came very prominently before this House, and occupied the attention of two of its Committees for a considerable period during the Session before last. When the amalgamation was carried, through the various railway administrations had to turn their attention to the carrying out of the provisions of the Amalgamation Act. That occupied a considerable time, engaging the strenuous thought of the railway authorities for many months. Therefore, it has been impossible to carry out this scheme of electrification of the Southend Railway up to the present moment. We are told to-night by my Noble Friend, and I entirely endorse every word he has said, that, before the close of the current year, the London Midland and Scottish Rail way is pledged to formulate a scheme for the improvement of the transport facilities on the London, Tilbury and Southend line, and that scheme, I have it on the word of the assistant general manager himself, will be brought into operation without a moment's delay. He also gives me this undertaking, which I convey to the House, namely, that he is prepared himself, with certain prominent members of his staff—

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is speaking on behalf of the company, and is giving us a definite assurance?

Mr. HANNON: Yes, I am one of the promoters of this Bill, and, therefore, I am speaking now on behalf of the London Midland and Scottish Railway.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Then we know why you are here.

Mr. HANNON: I sit for a Division of Birmingham, and many of my constituents are interested in the London, Midland and Scottish Railway. As I was trying to convey to the House, the deputy general manager, Mr. Burgees—a distinguished railway servant, a man of lifelong experience of railway administration
in this country—proposes, with prominent members of the staff of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, to visit Southend, I hope in company with the noble Lord, at an early date, and to meet the distinguished representatives of that interesting and progressive municipality, to discuss with them how the transport facilities on this line may be improved. I am confident that an assurance of that kind, coming from the responsible head of the London, Midland and Scottish administration, will satisfy the House that this Bill should receive a Second Reading.
I should like to add that the Bill in many of its provisions gives opportunities for the employment of a very large amount of labour in various districts. It gives opportunities of putting into work almost at once men who are now seeking employment, and, on that ground alone, I hope the Bill will commend itself to the House. No question will arise as to the necessity of the State financing or supporting the Bill in any way. The unexpired borrowing and capital powers of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company amount to the sum of £25,000,000, so that this great corporation will not have to come to the State or to any private lender to secure finances for this purpose. I hope the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill, firstly, because every single difficulty that has presented itself has been removed; secondly, because it will provide, in many districts of this country, opportunities of employment for people who are now out of work; thirdly, because it will improve in many cases the railway stations, access to the railways, facilities for transport, better accommodation for passengers and goods, and so forth; and, last but not least, because it will afford an opportunity to a great corporation of carrying out the undertakings in regard to improving the whole transport system of this country which were given on its behalf when the amalgamation act was carried into effect two years ago. The London, Midland and Scottish Railway has fulfilled every undertaking which was given during the progress of that Bill through Committee upstairs. The Noble Lord is the only one who can possibly cast doubt upon an assertion of that kind, but he, I think, will agree with me that
we can stand upon that statement. Therefore, with great confidence, I commend the Bill to the House for Second Reading.

Mr. HARDIE: I should like to make a few remarks on this Bill from personal experience, which, in itself, is always of first-rate value. Travelling about as I have been doing, and having experience of railways, I want to speak of the conditions of travelling between Crewe and Glasgow. When you get to Crewe at any time, you always find, when you leave a train coming from Wales, or one coming from London and going to Wales, that you have to wait until the officials about the station are able to pinch a carriage from one passenger train and a carriage from another in order to make up a train to go somewhere. All this, we have been told, has been due to a shortage of workmen, but here we have a shortage of rolling stock. On one occasion, as is well known to hon. Members of this House, it happened that I myself, when travelling from Crewe to Glasgow, had to stand in a corridor all the way, and, when I wrote drawing attention to this to their majesties the railway company's representatives, I got back letters that made one feel that, while it may be possible to approach the highest in this land, one could not presume to do so with the management of the L.M.S.
They have not been short of capital for carrying out the re-stocking that was necessary owing to the war. They got from the country's pocket all that they asked to go on with the replacement of the rolling stock that ought to be there. Crewe is a miserable place, to begin with, as a station, and it is much more miserable when it comes to the question of rolling stock. Five times within the last year I have had to travel from Crewe to Glasgow, and every time under difficulties, never once getting a seat at Crewe itself, but always having to wait till we were further down the line before I was able to obtain a seat. In the first instance, when I stood from Crewe to Glasgow, there were 64 persons standing in the corridor, breaking all the regulations we have in this country in regard to railways. When I tried to get this thing properly attended to, what happened? The men at the head of affairs made it plain to me that if I pressed the case, one of the under-paid ticket
collectors was going to get into trouble. I did not want to get a man into trouble, and I quitted from that point until to-night knowing that I should get an opportunity, and my opposition is not being withdrawn from the Bill.
I am going to go on with it. It is no use for the railway companies to put up a member of the F.B.I., or B.I.F., to tell us what the companies are going to do. We are not taking it at second hand. We are going to have it first hand. Then when you come to Glasgow it is here where you have the hard-headed sons of toil, the workers down the Clyde or at Bridgeton, who get into the underground trains in which there are no lamps, each carrying a ½d. candle in order to read the latest news in the papers. I hope that the representatives of the magnificent L.M.S. who are listening to-night will get some of this right down into their shoes that they may walk upon it and spread it out. When you ride to London from Glasgow, as we have to do, third class, there is never the slightest suggestion of doing the same as they do in other countries that we regard as not so highly civilised as we are. In other countries I have always been able to travel in a third class sleeper. We do not get that in the enlightened country called Britain. Why should that be? It is not a question in this case of saying the railways do not pay. Your railways have always paid handsomely on the active capital in them, but when the railways have obtained power from this House to water their stocks and bring 30 per cent. down to 15, 15 to 7½, and 7½ to 3¾ it is not a fair method. It is not a sportman's method. It is the method of swindle, first and last—nothing but a pure swindle.

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to describe railway companies as swindlers?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid there is an adage about companies which applies.

Mr. HARDIE: When an ordinary man puts a bob on a horse and loses, he does not expect the public to make it up. But here, these common swindlers, because it is on the Stock Exchange, men with frock coats and tile hats, who are supposed to be respectable and good, get
someone to pay £3 for a £1 share, and someone else to pay £5, and so on, and then the railway people say, "This is the actual capital of our company."

Mr. BROWN: May I ask the hon. Member a question?

Mr. HARDIE: No, you cannot ask me a question. I want to give other objectors time to get their objections out, and I conclude with this, that the London, Midland and Scottish, so far as the Scottish side is concerned, has been taken advantage of by the English side, because I know that when the Scottish companies in the group have asked for their quota of rolling stock, they have been denied it, and not only have they been denied it, but the organisation, which has taken the place on the English side, is always working to the detriment of the Scottish, side, and till these things are put right, not through a Federation of British Industries but direct through the House, I will oppose the Bill.

Mr. TURNER: I cannot follow my hon. Friend in his assertion that England gets the advantage over Scotland, because England is very badly served in many respects by the famous London, Midland and Scottish. It has been my privilege at times to go to the most notable seaside resort in the world, namely, Blackpool, and I hope to go on many occasions still. The last time I was there, nearly a year ago, on a journey of over three hours, there was not a lavatory upon the train for the ordinary passengers. It seems to me that in journeys of that character they have to learn a bit more than they have learned in the days gone by. It seems to me that express trains running from Bradford to Liverpool, but staying at Manchester—I know it is only a short distance of 36 miles or thereabouts—ought to have corridors and not single compartments with no convenience or safety for the travelling public. The London, Midland and Scottish have absorbed a most notable railway called the Languid and Yawning. In my travelling throughout Yorkshire and Lancashire I have to use that notorious railway, and if you go to Skelmanthorpe or Penistoneor Holmfirth, or places round the Barnsley area, you will find that some of that stock is at least 50 years out of date. I remember the old Lancashire
and Yorkshire many years ago, when we had the uncushioned seats. I thought they had improved them a little bit when they had the rough cushions they have now, and when the great London, Midland and Scottish took it over, I thought we should see a vast improvement. I am hoping that they will promise an improvement and that those agencies just outside the House will convince my hon. Friends inside the House that something may be done in the direction of improving the rolling stock for the ordinary, patient, third-class travelling public. Of course, I can see vast numbers of first-class compartments nearly empty, and I can see in the early morning crowds of people—12, 13 or 14 folks—in room only suitable for eight or 10. Then I want to claim for women who travel in trains that there should be a few more compartments labelled "for ladies only." I know it will be said ladies will go into smoking compartments, and they do. It is the bad training of the men that has caused the women to get into the first coach they come to. But still there are now more enlightened women whom I see looking for "ladies only," and I trust there will be more than there are at present. I came from Manchester to Bradford the other day. There were some children, and there was no possibility of any comfort for them, because there was no corridor and no convenience. I think the company should be ashamed to delay it beyond the year 1924. Then I want to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to insert a proviso making it secure that footpaths will be preserved where they are of prime importance to local people. I will take the hon. Member's pledge that they mean to do it, but I am a Yorkshire-man, and I want to see it in black and white, and I hope it will be put through.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to raise two serious objections to this Bill. In the first place, I wish to draw attention to what I regard as a serious flaw, and I desire the ruling of Mr. Speaker upon it. This is a Bill promoted by a railway company for definite purposes concerned with the running and the development of railways, and it contains a provision for the establishment by this private company of a savings bank. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but I am quite serious. I regard this as a great
departure, and one to which Mr. Speaker's attention ought to be called. It is remarkable that a railway company in a Bill for railway purposes should come to this House and ask for powers in connection with a savings bank. I have never known anything of the sort outside this House or in this House. I do not wish to place a railway company in a position more advantageous or less advantageous than that of any public authority, but I maintain that if a public authority came here with a Provisional Order for the development of tramways or gas and electricity undertakings, and dared to introduce Clauses for the establishment of municipal banks, this House would not allow the Bill to go through. I protest, and I shall carry the matter to a Division. In the first place, I wish to ask for Mr. Speaker's ruling whether it is in order, in a Bill for the development of railways, to insert a Clause for the establishment of a savings bank, which is not part of the running of the concern?

Mr. HANNON: Before you give your ruling upon the point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it is not a very proper function of a railway company or any other similar corporation to make provision in its statutes for the safeguarding of the savings of its employés and the encouragement of thrift?

Mr. SPEAKER: Dealing with the point of Order, it is within the competence of the promoters of the Bill to make this proposal. It will be for the Committee on the Bill upstairs to say whether or not it should be passed.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but at the same time I contend that no publicly-elected body would do this sort of thing. Can any hon. Member who has had experience of the work of a public authority say that such authority would come to this House with a Provisional Order dealing with the development of electricity, trams, or any other municipal undertaking, and, by a side-wind, try to get powers to establish a municipal bank?

Mr. HANNON: Surely the hon. Member would not compare the London, Midland and Scottish railway with a small corporation asking for powers?

Mr. BUCHANAN: With all due respect to the company for which the hon. Member
is speaking, I say that the Glasgow City Council is more efficiently managed and its undertakings are a greater credit to it than could be said of the undertakings of the London, Midland and Scottish railway. I am not going to say that a public body, democratically elected, should have less importance than a company of this kind. I have not come into this matter in any jocular fashion to-night. I take a serious view of this Bill, and I shall press my protest.
There is another point to which I take serious objection, and that is the part of the Bill which deals with constables and offences. In that part of the Bill, it is the intention of the company that any two justices shall have the power to swear in any particular man to be a constable. That is a grave departure, and hon. Members below the Gangway, who claim to be as keen as ourselves in defence of the rights and the liberty of the subject, ought to have noticed this. It is a terrible thing that it should be left to a Socialist from Glasgow to notice it. I protest against this infringement of the rights of the individual citizen in this Bill. I protest against any railway company having the right to get any two justices in a particular county—those two justices may be railway directors, and probably would be—to swear in men, who are to have the same standing, and the same rights as an ordinary constable serving under a municipality or under the Government. This Bill asks that the constables appointed by the railway company shall have the power to search, to arrest and to convey to a police station any person whom they suspect. Here is a business concern coming along and asking that two of their directors shall be able to swear in a constable who shall have the right to arrest and to search any other employé of the company or any other person on the premises of the railway, whom they may suspect.
I understood that this Bill was an agreed Bill, according to inquiries I made. I warn those who agree to a Measure of this kind against infringing the rights of citizens. This is one of the gravest infringements which I have known in any Bill. I protest in the most serious and emphatic fashion that any two men shall have the power, because they happen to be justices, and possibly directors of the
company, to appoint any man to be a constable, and that man shall have the power to search, arrest and convey to prison any person whom he may suspect. This Bill is an outrage on liberty. [Laughter.] Some hon. Members laugh. My constituents will be the people who will sufler, because it will not be the well-to-do who will be arrested. Under the guise of a railway Bill, this company are asking for powers of which they have never shown themselves to be worthy. I have yet to learn that this House has so far gone from democracy that it is prepared to give to any private company more rights and powers than they give to the local authorities. We never appoint constables in the fashion that is proposed in this Bill.

Mr. HANNON: It is for the purpose of protecting the property of the public.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Before we make any man a constable he has to serve a probationary period. He has to equip himself, and show himself fit, not to railway directors, but to a public body, after keen and careful scrutiny. I am not going to hand over to any Tom, Dick or Harry the right to arrest and search any constituent of mine. In asking for this power this Bill is one of the most serious attacks on the right of the individual citizen. I hope that Members on the Front bench who belong to my party will insist that this Clause be taken from the Bill. We heard a Member on the Front bench to-day telling us that a man must serve a probationary period before he becomes a constable, and if the Chief Constable thought he was not well enough equipped for the work he had the right to dismiss him at the end of the period of probation. Is the same Government going to give a contrary answer on this point now? This Clause must be dropped or else I will oppose the Bill.
The company is not worth the trust we are asked to repose in it. Some of us unfortunately have to leave Glasgow occasionally to come to London. It is said by some hon. Member behind me that we trust the railway company to take us. We do not trust the company; we trust its servants. Even in this respect the railway company has never given the service which it should give. The lack of accommodation in the trains going from Glasgow to London is a disgrace. There
is a minimum of 30 persons in a whole railway carriage, and the company provides two towels and a small piece of soap for 30 people who are going to make the journey from Glasgow to London. An ample supply of drinking water should be an essential on every passenger train, but the supply which is given is meagre, and the quality of the water supplied is a disgrace to any company of standing. Then the carriages are ill-ventilated. This Bill, apart from the condemnation which I have made regarding the Savings Bank and the policemen—

Mr. HANNON: May I interrupt my hon. Friend to point out that for over 20 years past this power of appointing constables, to safeguard the property and lives of the public, has been in existence, and that this is only a model clause to bring this Bill into conformity with existing Acts?

9.0 P.M.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is why my constituents beat the representatives of your party, because they want to change that. I cannot imagine any colleague of mine in the Labour party handing over to two justices of a county the right to swear in as a constable a man, appointed by the directors of a company, who is to have the right to search and convey to the police station on mere suspicion any person whom he thinks fit to arrest. I will divide the House before I let such an infringement of liberty be incorporated in a Bill which, at its best, is not worth the support of the House.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: In regard to the remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down, I think it has been pointed out already that the Clauses in this Bill dealing with the appointment of constables are no novelty in railway Bills, and that the purpose is simply to protect the public and their property while they are travelling over any system under the railway company. In making proper provision for a service of this kind the railway company are only discharging a duty to the public, and if they did not discharge it the hon. Member who has just sat down would be one of the first to criticise the directors, or those responsible for such important public institutions as a railway, and endeavour to bring them to book. In reference to the reasonable observations of the hon. Member for Batley (Mr. Turner) we must
all agree that the railway rolling stock at the present moment is neither adequate nor exists in the condition which we shall all desire. I would remind him, when he alluded to the railway which he described as the "languid and yawning," that there was another name applied to another railway which shows the result, if I may say so, of the investment of the money of private individuals in providing transport for the benefit of the public. I allude to the line which used to bear the nickname of the "Money Sunk and Lost Line."
One of the constituent elements of the London, Midland and Scottish system is the Midland Railway, and the Midland Railway, if my information is correct, was the pioneer in providing cushioned seats for third class passengers, which was regarded as a revolutionary movement at that time. But nowadays the quality of the cushions provided no longer satisfies the reasonable expectations of the public, and I think that the companies themselves, given the opportunity, will not fail to meet the requirements of the public and to improve their rolling stock both in quality and in quantity in accordance with the justifiable needs of the public, and, in regard to that, and in allusion particularly to the remarks of the hon Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), he will no doubt bear in mind that during the long years of the War, and a certain period afterwards, the railway companies were not only in no position to renew their rolling stock, but such stock as they had available was heavily drawn upon for the services of the armed forces. Enormous quantities were taken over to France. Consequently, the companies did play their part towards winning the War.

Mr. HARDIE: I quite acknowledge all that. I am talking of the period since the War, when men who could have built the carriages have been kept idle.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I accept that statement, but I was leading up to the situation of to-day, the difficulties of which were so largely contributed to by the period to which I have alluded. One of the companies has voted the expenditure of no less than £14,000,000 on the provision of rolling stock, locomotives and so forth. That is sufficient to show that they recognise the need for them. There is a need for this extra
rolling stock, and as opportunity serves the work will be carried out. Reference has been made by you, Sir, to the adage describing a characteristic disadvantage which applies to all corporate bodies, companies in particular. As the company cannot be directly represented in this House, I have endeavoured to put before hon. Members a few observations dictated by such knowledge as in mine in reference to eriticisms of the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. RHYS: As the representative of a constituency which is served by the Southend Branch of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, I wish to associate myself with the Noble Lord the Member for Southend (Viscount Elveden). My constituency goes about half-way down the line, and includes Barking, which is a very crowded spot, with railway facilities that are totally inadequate. I was very glad to have the assurance of my hon. Friend that he is taking steps to get the railway company to carry out promises which have been made. The conditions under which the public travel on that line to-day are a danger to life and limb. I realise the great difficulty to be overcome on the regrouping of the railways, electrification, and so forth. I hope, however, that when the representatives of the company travel to Southend, they will travel on a train some time about six o'clock in the evening. I add my request to others that the railway company should do everything possible to mitigate the appalling conditions at the present time.

Mr. MARCH: I wish to say a few words that will bring hon. Members towards London a little nearer than Southend. There are such places as Canning Town, Custom House and Albert Docks, and I would like to invite any of the directors or supporters of this railway company to take a trip in the cattle trucks in which workmen travel to their work to earn the money for the company, and to put a little on one side in order to go to that salubrious spot known as Southend. I would also call the attention of the company to the fact that there is a roadway which runs down the Victoria Dock Road to the Victoria Docks. During the War D.O.R.A. stepped in and said that the railway companies could keep the gates
on that road closed for about 20 minutes at a time. The vehicular traffic is held up during that time for the convenience of the trains. Before the War it was no unusual thing to find the gates closed backwards and forwards in about five minutes, but now the vehicular traffic hat to be held up for the convenience of the trains of the railway company. When persons connected with the vehicular traffic communicated with the railway company, it was said that the arrangements would be altered. Up to the present that has not been done. I do not see any reason why the railway company, with the money available, should not build a bridge there for the traffic or trains to go over or under, so as to leave the roadway free for vehicular traffic, because, as the docks are extended, the vehicular traffic becomes greater weekly. Owing to the opening of the King George the Fifth Dock alongside the Albert Dock, the vehicular traffic is more congested than ever it was before. I hope the company will see that some better arrangement is made in the meantime, so that the gates referred to are opened and closed more promptly. Further, is there not a possibility of extending the line from Blackwall round Canning Town, picking up passengers there, takig them round the docks and the waterside, and linking them up with Barking. It would be a boon to the district, and might prove profiable to the company.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: An hon. Member opposite objected very strongly to the savings bank Clause in the Bill. He was under a misapprehension in his objection. It is perfectly competent for myself, or any other employer of labour, to run a savings bank for the people we employ. This Clause had to be included in this Bill because it is not competent for a railway company to run a savings bank unless it gets direct Parliamentary sanction. If the hon. Member himself wishes to run a savings bank, he can do so. The only persons debarred are represented by the public company in the position of a railway company. But for this Clause railway company's employés would lose the advantage of having the savings bank which they desire.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I am sorry that I was not in the House when this discussion arose,
but I understood there was not going to be any opposition to the Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: You do not know us.

Mr. GOSLING: I am stating what I understood to be the case. I think a Bill of this magnitude ought not to be prevented from taking its Second Reading. I shall have to report on this Bill and I will undertake that the three points which have been particularly raised shall have my very serious consideration and attention.

Mr. MARCH: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the question of the roadway and of the closing of the gates at the Victoria Dock Road?

Mr. GOSLING: I will do whatever I can in the best interests of all parties concerned, and I cannot say more than that. I hope the House will agree to the Second Reading.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I wish to mention one particular Clause which seems to require careful consideration before it is embodied in an Act of Parliament. I refer to Clause 42, which states:
The company shall have power, and shall be deemed always to have had power to build houses, shops, chambers, flats, offices and other similar buildings on any land which has already been, or which may hereafter be acquired by the company, or over any station, railway, canal, etc.
This is an extraordinary power to confer upon a railway company, since one of the previous Clauses permits them to erect as many houses for their workpeople as they may require. It appears that great possibilities may be opened up by this Clause, which may work out to the disadvantage of the travelling public. One can imagine a rapidly developing district in which a new branch line becomes necessary, and the railway company, instead of taking the branch line to where the people are resident, may deliberately divert it half a mile or a mile away and commence to erect buildings and shops themselves, and thereby create a value upon their particular line to the detriment of the public. Having regard to that possibility and to the possibility of the extension of this particular Clause so as to enable the company to become a competitor with municipal undertakings in such matters, for instance, as the supply of electricity, I think it requires very serious attention.

Mr. HANNON: That point would be governed by the Electricity Acts already in force.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Like another hon. Member who has spoken and who is a Yorkshireman, I like to see these matters put into black and white, and I hope consideration will be given to this point.

Mr. GRAY: I desire to direct the Minister's attention to Clause 45. The hon. and gallant Member for Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) rather overstated his case when he described this provision as being for the protection of the public. Clause 45, as I understand it, is for the protection of the railway company and not of the public. Any damages resulting from accident to life or limb or property represent a loss which falls, in substantially all cases, on the railway company and not on the public. Sub-section (2) of Clause 45 may follow a model form and may be in existing Acts, but it is an extremely dangerous one and the time has now arrived when it should receive careful attention from the Government. Although it is for the protection of the company, it is contrary to the general law of the land and it relieves people who are making a criminal allegation from the obligation which has existed from time immemorial of proving that allegation, while it throws upon the man against whom the allegation is made, and who is an employé, too, the very severe obligation of proving his own innocence.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Robert Young): I hope it will be possible for the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill before half-past nine o'clock, otherwise it will be impossible to get the next Order, and, as a result, I shall have to come to the House again and take further Government time for the consideration of that Order.

Mr. SHORT: Having regard to the opposition raised to this Bill on several important points, we should have a more satisfactory statement from the Minister, beyond the mere assurance which he has given us. Failing that, we should have some indication of willingness on the part of those speaking for the company to meet at any rate some of the points which have been raised.

Mr. HANNON: They said so.

Mr. SHORT: We have had no expression of that kind upon the points raised by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Buchanan), particularly that in connection with the savings banks. It is perfectly true that statutory powers must be obtained by the railway company in this connection and, personally, I understand that other railway companies make provision for savings banks particularly in connection with superannuation funds. I have no objection to this provision being incorporated in the present Bill, but I observe it is expected that the servants of the company will make deposits at these savings banks and, consequently, I think a provision should also be included in the Bill whereby depositors who are employees of the company should have representation upon the board or committee managing the undertaking. These provisions indicate that certain rules are to be drawn up to regulate the management and control of these banks and the rules will be drawn up by three directors and the secretary of the company, but there is no indication that the workpeople who become depositors are to have any representation in the management of this somewhat communal enterprise—that is communal inside a private undertaking. In connection with the superannuation funds, the railway companies arrange for the representation of the staff on the management body, and this matter ought not to escape the notice of the Minister. A great change has come over the outlook of the people of this country. We are not content to continue to give great powers to these big corporations by which, and through which, they are capable of making profit out of the interests of the community and by serving the needs of the community, unless the people concerned in these great undertakings bear a greater part in the control and in the management of these undertakings. The point I am making—and I venture to think it is an important point—is that there should be some provision made to that effect. There is nothing that will guarantee this representation, which I am seeking, in the Bill at the moment, but I do hope that my hon Friend, who is paying so much interest in the promotion of this Bill, will see to it that the workpeople, or those whose interests are involved in this matter, will secure that representation
and that measure of control which I am suggesting.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: The observations which have been made by various hon. Members opposite regarding rail services are very properly made in this House. I have had the opportunity of speaking to the promoters of the Bill since the Debate started, and they asked me to say that if those hon. Gentlemen who have raised these points to-night will be good enough to communicate with the general manager's office, they will be very glad.

Mr. BUCHANAN: We never get an acknowledgment. They do not even spend a ½d. stamp on us.

Sir J. NALL: The general manager's office will be very glad if the hon. Gentlemen concerned will communicate those complaints direct to Euston.

Mr. BUCHANAN: They take so little notice of a Scottish Member of Parliament that they never spend a ½d stamp on him.

Sir J. NALL: I am quite sure the House will sympathise with the hon. Member. All I am endeavouring to say now is this: Since the Debate arose to-night I have asked the promoters how it is that these complaints have to be raised in this House, and why they have not been adjusted otherwise. The answer is that they have no trace of these particular complaints.

Mr. HARDIE: It is an insult to say there is no trace, because I have copies of their letters.

Sir J. NALL: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. All I am endeavouring to say is this: These complaints have been made, and, as one who is interested in the Private Bills that go from this House, I have asked the promoters what they had to say about these complaints. The answer is, that if hon. Members who have personal knowledge of these matters will communicate—

Mr. HARDIE: I have done so.

Sir J. NALL: If they will do so again, the general manager will be glad to see them and go into these matters with a view to adjusting them. The other point is this, the company's workshops, as I well know, are fully employed. The
whole of the workshops' staffs are fully employed. The whole of their resources for renewing and repairing their rolling stock are fully employed, and they have let numerous contracts to rolling stock builders outside their own works. The whole of those facilities are being made full use of. There is no question of holding up work or of delaying work. If hon. Gentlemen will lay these complaints before the management, I am perfectly certain that these matters, ventilated as they very properly have been in this House, will be adjusted, and need not upset the Second Reading of what is really a very important Bill.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL, (By Order.)

Read a Second time, and committed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1923–24.

Orders of the Day — REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the salaries and expenses of the Post Office, including telegraphs and telephones.
Question again proposed.

Mr. HARTSHORN: When the last Bill came on, I had a few other statements I wished to make at the time, but having regard to what has taken place, I will not re-open the discussion now. I hope with such statements as I have made,
and the reasons I have given for this Vote, the Committee will now allow it to pass through.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, the sum of £2,958,020 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Mr. BUCHANAN: May we have some explanation of this Resolution? We have discussed a matter of £100,000 or so in connection with Poplar for a whole day, and yet we are asked to spend all this money in about two minutes.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): This matter really requires no explanation. It is a pure formality. For some time we have been discussing provisions in connection with the treatment of foot-and-mouth disease. There has been the most ample discussion in the House, and this is simply a Resolution enabling us to pay the money which the House has amply discussed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

ESTIMATES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Select Committee be appointed to examine such of the Estimates presented to this House as may seem fit to the Committee, and to suggest the form in which the Estimates shall be presented for examination, and to report what, if any, economies, consistent with the policy implied in those Estimates may be effected therein."—[Mr. Griffiths]

Mr. LEIF JONES: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion whether he is in a position to give me an answer to the question I put
down for Monday to the Prime Minister in regard to this Committee, and whether he will not consent to postpone this to-night until I can get an answer from the Prime Minister. There is a good deal of difference of opinion as to the powers which an Estimates Committee should possess and as to the composition of the Committee, and, if necessary, I will debate the matter now, but I would much prefer to wait until I have had the Prime Minister's answer.

Mr. GRIFFITHS (Treasurer of the Household): I have been trying to arrange this through the usual channels, and if my right hon. Friend will allow me to get. this Motion to-night, I will convey his request to the Prime Minister.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I am sorry I cannot consent to that.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): My right hon. Friend will recall the answer I made to a supplementary question the other day, when I explained to him that we had not had time to determine the powers in respect of this particular Committee, and I doubt whether any good purpose will be served by holding up this proposal now. Therefore, I hope he will allow it to go through, on the understanding that I will report his wishes to the Prime Minister.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I am sorry not to meet the wishes of the Deputy Leader of the House in this matter and to delay the setting up of the Estimates Committee, but it will be within the recollection of many hon. Members that in 1918 a very important Committee on National Expenditure went fully into the question of the Estimates Committee and reported, with a series of recommendations in regard to the powers which that Committee should possess and the composition of the Committee. In effect, that Committee reported that the Estimates Committee could be of very little value unless its recommendations were carried out. I have sent for the Report, which is in the Library, and I hope it will be here before I resume my seat, but the first point I wish to make is that the Estimates Committee ought to have among its members certain members of the Public Accounts Committee. The latter Committee investigates and reports to the House upon
the audited accounts, and it is very desirable that some members of the Public Accounts Committee should be on the Estimates Committee, and vice versa, so that those who have gone through the Estimates when they are Estimates should be upon the Committee which investigates the audited accounts. The National Expenditure Committee, before which you, Mr. Speaker, and your predecessor, and many Chancellors of the Exchequer gave evidence, was unanimous in making this recommendation in regard to the composition of the Estimates Committee. Now I find that no notice has been taken of the recommendations of that very influential and important Committee, which got a great deal of evidence and made careful recommendations. I come back after five years to find that nothing has been done in this matter, and I venture to think that if we do not carry out this recommendation the Estimates Committee may really do more harm than good, because the House is under the impression that the Estimates Committee is going fully into these matters, and is, therefore, inclined to leave them to the Committee, but in reality the Estimates Committee has not the power necessary to deal with the accounts.
That brings me to the second main point made by the National Expenditure Committee, which it declared to be essential—and I would call the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, to this point—if the Estimates Committee was to be of any value to the House, that it should have at its service an expert examiner of Estimates, who should be a person entirely independent of the Departments. It was suggested that his work might be done by the Treasury or by the Departments, but the National Expenditure Committee was emphatically of the opinion that, if the Estimates Committee was to be of value, it must have an examiner of Estimates armed with powers somewhat analogous to those of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is the great officer of this House, independent even of the Government, and who audits the accounts, and reports to the Public Accounts Committee. He is our leader and guide on the Public Accounts Committee, and as the result of his reports the Public Accounts Committee is able really
to be of service in regard to the audited accounts. In a similar way, if the Estimates Committee is to be really valuable, it must have an examiner of Estimates, who will do services in regard to the Estimates analogous to those of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in regard to the audited accounts. He also should be independent of the Departments, independent even of the Government, able to criticise absolutely freely, and to investigate with complete freedom and authority the Estimates presented by the Government Departments to the Estimates Committee.
I admit freely that I am not a great advocate of the Estimates Committee at all. I believe the proper place in which to investigate the Estimates is here in the House, but if we are to have an Estimates Committee let us at least have one with some authority and power, and let it be one that will interchange its information with the Public Accounts Committee. I submit that the matter was carefully investigated, and if the Estimates Committee is to be set up, I beg the House to give it the necessary powers.

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
My hon. Friend has rather discussed the conduct of other Governments than that of the present Government. I think it is undesirable at present to enter into the merits of the question, but I think my hon. Friend may take it we are not losing sight of the points submitted. The Government have not been able to settle yet, for want of time, its policy on this question, but the views my hon. Friend has expressed will be reported and considered in the proper quarter. It is not our wish, in the circumstances, to press the Resolution to-night.

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Ordered, That the Lords Message [21st February] relating to Consolidation Bills be now considered.—[Mr. Griffiths.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered, That a Select Committee of Five Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message, to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Lieut.-Colonel England, Mr. Foot, Sir Malcolm Macnaghten, Mr. Rentoul, and Mr. Short nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Mr. Griffiths.]

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Clynes.]

Mr. KEDWARD: I want to call the attention of the House to the failure, evidently, of the Government to provide us with sufficient business to continue until the normal time. I quite understand some Members do not desire to hear all I have to say, but it is not so very long ago when Members on my left were sending deputations to see the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who was then Prime Minister, chasing him to Scotland to put to him the urgency of the unemployment question, and there were Resolutions passed by hon. Members on my left asking again and again that the House should meet to consider this very important question. Yet here we are now, unable to provide sufficient business to continue until the normal time. I wonder what the thousands and thousands of unemployed will think. The Government have made promises to these people, indicating to them, if only they had the opportunity, they would deal with this matter straightaway, and now we find them impotent to do anything, or to carry on business until 11 o'clock.

Mr. MAXTON: I, too, would like to offer a few observations on this subject. During last Session, when the occupants of these benches were in opposition, the
programme put down to-night would have been a very heavy one. It was the duty of the Opposition to-night to fight the Measures that were brought before this House. They passed them all, because they had not sense enought to compel the Government to fight every inch of the way. The Opposition has completely failed in its duty to the country in not compelling a strict examination of every item of business the Government have brought forward.

Captain W. BENN: Who are the Opposition?

Mr. MAXTON: My hon. Friend who has raised this question is a very new Member, otherwise he would know that the Government's business is to get through as quickly as possible, and the Opposition's business to delay them as much as possible. The one contentious business we had before us tonight was the Railway Bill, and the opposition was not from other parties, who, to assist this huge private enterprise to preserve its own privileges, powers and profits, were anxious to assist those people to get it through, and only here was a demand made that, under the new dispensation, a railway company would have to recollect that we were much more interested in the rights of the travelling public and the conditions of the railway employés than we were in the powers, privileges or profits of this particular private company. I hope that on many other occasions this contingency will arise, that our Liberal and Tory opponents Will be so satisfied with this revolutionary Socialist Government that the various proposals they bring forward will go practically without opposition, and we shall all be finished and away home before the hour of 10 o'clock.

Mr. E. BROWN: I cannot, as a new Member, allow the experienced Member who has just sat down to get away with his speech unanswered. If he had studied the Order Paper of the Supplementary Estimates, he would have found out that, so far from the Government having succeeded in getting the business through, they have abandoned their business. There was expected to be a discussion, not merely till 11 o'clock, but the Government, at the commencement of business to-day, got a vote for the suspension of the 11 o'clock rule.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) talking on the various platforms of the country in defence of the rights of free speech, attempted to stifle free speech in this House when at three minutes to 10 o'clock he drew attention to the fact that 40 Members were not present. I was observing, when the count was called, that, so far from the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) being correct in stating that the Government had got through their business, the facts were therwise. A very important debate was expected on the Kenya question, a question of immense importance, not only to the House, but to the country. I saw a Minister of the Crown leave the Front Bench just now in order to make one less than the 40. I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman who I see standing behind the Chair, that though I do not belong to his party, I had made arrangements to stay here till after 11, and, if necessary, to 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, in order to help the Government to get through their business. To treat a private Member who is not of his own party, and who is supporting his party in order that they shall get fair play in this House is not quite playing the game. Further, I should like to point out that, since I have been sitting on these benches, a rumour has reached me that the reason this business has not yet been got through is because of a spectacle now observed in the House, of the right hon. Gentleman in evening dress; the reason that the business has not gone through, I understand, is because there is a very sumptuous banquet going on at the Savoy Hotel—

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow the hon. Member to go into that matter.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. BROWN: I bow to your ruling, of course, but I should like to point out that I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary is absent on account of another engagement, and I wish to protest as strongly as I can against the assumption made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton that the Government have got their business through. I wish to point out that the fact that many
of us come here and listen to the Debates and take part in the work requires that the Government of to-day should take pains so to arrange their business that the private Members who sacrifice their time should know that arrangements are made. There should be sufficient Government business of an urgent importance in order to occupy the time of the House. I make my protest. I hope the Government will take notice of it. When we are referred to as the Opposition, the Government perhaps will remember that some of us have gone into the Lobby to support them. We do so because we believe they are in earnest in regard to the grave questions which the people of this country expect to have discussed here—questions of unemployment, of overseas settlement, of the resettlement of Europe, and the development, not merely of the great urban centres to provide work for the unemployed there, but questions of land reclamation and drainage in order to make the agricultural worker in the rural district have something of the advantages of the urban worker. The one receives unemployment, pay; the other does not. I want to make my emphatic protest against this mishandling and muddling of the business on the part of the Government, and I hope, from my point of view, it will not occur again.

Mr. MILLS: If the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown) consulted the Whips of his own party he would discover that what is known as the usual arrangement is sometimes made by the Government Front Bench and the Opposition, that certain business shall be taken, and other business left. The Whips of the Liberal party will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that it is correct to state that it was agreed that after the Agricultural Vote has been taken no further business would be transacted. In order to expedite that, the Scottish Members agreed to restrain themselves, so that the matter might go through in that way. The hon. Member for Rugby, so far as my information goes, has not, with all respect, quite understood the position.

Mr. BROWN: On a point of Order. May I tell the hon. Member that I have been sitting through the Debate.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: There seems to have been a slight misunderstanding in what the last speaker said on this matter. I was interested in this particular Kenya Debate, and I was sitting in the House waiting for it to come on. I was informed by a kind friend of the Labour party that the Supplementary Estimate in connection with it had been withdrawn. That is the first I knew of it, and I think the first our party knew of it.

Captain W. BENN: Having been a Member of this House for many years I think I am entitled to congratulate the Government of the day on the rapidity with which they have adopted this capacity for management. I do not take the situation at all seriously. I can remember many occasions on which this same has happened. I congratulate them on the skill with which they have joined with their allies in attempting to frustrate the natural desire of Members of Parliament to continue the Debate at all times, when required, and for which duty they were elected. But it is not the Government business I complain about at all. I understand there was some arrangement made. I have not a word to say about that. What has happened is that the rights of private Members have been affected. Private Members have very few opportunities in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I can understand the jubilation of hon. Members sitting behind the Government Front Bench, and if I may say respectfully, speaking for myself, I share in their delight. In what has occurred they have my sympathy. This is a question of private Members. If it so happens that Government business is finished, there should be an opportunity for private Members. Private Members had on the Notice Paper several notices of Bills and Motions which might have been dealt with if the Whip had not risen to move that the House now adjourn. There is one particular thing which might have been done. We might have got the assent of the House to a Resolution dealing with the thrift limit in old age pensions. This is a quite serious point. It would not have been a bad thing if we had utilised the time available to passing, no doubt without any opposition, and putting on the Minutes of Proceedings of this House the determination of the House in respect to the removal of this disqualification.
Perhaps the Treasurer of the Household might see his way to withdraw his Motion just for the necessary few minutes to enable this Motion on old age pensions to be carried. If he would do so I think it would meet the wishes of the House.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: I wish to rise to take the first opportunity of allowing the Minister of Transport, whom I am glad to see in his place, to explain the attitude of his Department towards electricity in the County of London. We have waited for a long time for a statement as to what the Government policy is in regard to this very important problem. The Minister on many occasions has placed on the Table and moved Resolutions with reference to electricity in several districts of England and Wales, but in London, where the problem is most important, no progress has been made. He has the advantage of the advice of three very able Commissioners, one a civil servant, another an electrical engineer, and a third an old controller of the county council. We have been moving, as he knows, for the last 15 years, that this long overdue problem should be solved. We have a scheme put forward for London and the home counties which was prepared by the Commissioners after a delay of two or three years. We had also a scheme put forward by the London County Council and the local authorities. I am not blaming the Minister, because I know he is anxious to find a solution of this problem; but the late Government, although they had the advantage of the elaborate machinery of a highly organised Department, have been moving first in one direction and then in another, with the result that the industry of London has suffered. God knows, trade is bad enough in London, but if it is to be revived one of the most important things is that it should have cheap power. Progress has been made in the provinces towards having co-ordinated schemes, but in London nothing has been done. The position is gradually getting worse. Owing to the delays the various power companies are extending their stations, sinking large sums of money, which prejudices the proper solution of the problem. If you are to get electricity cheap and efficient, you must have a supply of power for as large an area as possible.
In London you have a number of conflicting interests. In the County of London you have a large number of local authorities owning small power stations. Such districts as Kensington, Westminster, and Chelsea are supplied by companies. Outside London are great power companies which are taking advantage of the delay to sink large sums of capital in new plant and prejudicing the final settlement of this programme on sound and satisfactory lines. The Minister has had great experience. I believe he has the majority of the House behind him on this question and, if he will grasp the nettle and have the courage to insist that the Commissioners should put forward a scheme on sound lines, he will be able to give it the force almost of an Act of Parliament by administrative action. But time is vital. There are Bills in another place put forward by the various vested interests. But if there is delay in administrative action there is a danger that Parliament in despair will allow them to get the powers they ask. Unfortunately, most of the time of the House up to Easter has been mapped out, and there is very little chance of this question being settled. In London electricity is dearer than in almost any other part of the country. You have local authorities such as Stepney, where you have a cheap supply and Poplar as well. I will give that credit to Poplar. We have the Act of Parliament and no legislation is required. The Act of Parliament requires that you should map the country into electricity areas and that electricity authorities should be set up on which will be representatives of all the interests concerned. That has been done in other parts of the country, but, for some reason that we cannot fathom, there are all kinds of delays in London. Let the Minister insist that the scheme shall be put forward. If that scheme is put before Parliament, I believe he will be backed and very soon something will be done. If there is delay we are gradually arriving at the time when the London County Council will have to face the question whether it is to buy out the companies at a very high price or give them a fresh lease of power. Time is ripe in the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman has now ample time to put forward his scheme, and then we can discuss it and get a move on in this very vital problem.

Mr. FOOT: For a long time I had been anxious to put before the House a question which has been dealt with once or twice at Question Time. I have simply to make a suggestion, and I may say that it is not being made by way of criticism of the Government. My question is in relation to perpetual pensions. I had an opportunity in the House that met before 1922 of putting certain questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon a subject which, while it does not involve a largo annual sum, is still one of importance. The answers I got were quite inconclusive and unsatisfactory.

Mr. LANSBURY: They always are.

Mr. FOOT: I can assure the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley that the answer I have got from the present Government has not been any more satisfactory. In the last Parliament there were some further questions put in relation to these perpetual pensions, and I was given an answer by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer which led me to think that inquiries were really made with a view to these pensions being terminated. I followed that up by a question to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer only a few days ago, asking him if his Government would take steps to terminate the perpetual pensions now being paid, and his answer was almost the same as that given by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he said the Government were prepared to enter into negotiations to terminate these pensions upon satisfactory terms.
I would like to remind the House what are these perpetual pensions. As a matter of fact, there are pensions being paid at the present time to the descendants of the Duke of Schomberg for services rendered before the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. Another pension is being paid to the descendants of Lord Rodney because of a battle fought in the West Indies in 1782, and another pension is also being paid to the descendants of a brother of Lord Nelson on account of what was done in 1805. I think the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) will agree with me that two families have already been amply rewarded by the payment of some £850,000 for services rendered more than 100 years ago. Although this matter is being raised at so late an hour, I think there will be practical unanimity
in this House, and, perhaps, in present circumstances, more than I could secure on any other occasion, if I press upon His Majesty's Ministers, and those who are now at the Treasury, that the Members of this House and the people of this country think that the services—most meritorious services—rendered so long ago have now been amply rewarded, and that these pensions ought to be brought to a conclusion. I do not think there should be any harsh treatment of those who have been led to rely upon them, but I think it would be fair if we came to some terms under which, when the lives of those at present enjoying the pensions should cease, the pensions should then terminate.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Does the hon. Member suggest that the descendants of these gentlemen should be paid compensation?

Mr. FOOT: I suggest that we should not go on for another 100, 200 or 500 years paying these pensions. I think it would be arbitrary, without, some adequate notice, to bring these pensions to an immediate conclusion, and I do not desire that hardship should be caused, because we must have some regard to what has been done by the community all along; but I do urge upon the Government that some negotiations might be entered into in order that we might bring to an end what some people in the country regard as a real scandal, at a time when, according to the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, we have difficulty in meeting the claims of the old age pensioners. It is impossible to go to poor people in this country who are receiving less than 10s. per week and tell them that, while at the same time we are paying out to one gentleman, who is not a descendant of Lord Nelson at all, but is a descendant of his brother, not 10s., but £100 per week. I believe that that is indefensible, and that, as soon as Parliament comes to consider it, some arrangement will be insisted upon; and it might be wise if the Financial Secretary could get into communication with those who have been so favoured in the community, and assure them that, unless some reasonable arrangement can soon be made, these pensions may be brought abruptly to an end.

Mr. JOHN HARRIS: I avail myself of the short time that remains to-night to raise a question which I have long been wishing to raise in this House. I understand that an appeal is shortly to be made to this country to contribute a quota to the erection of what is called the Labour Palace at Geneva. The International Labour Office at the moment is situated in an out-of-the-way place outside Geneva, but I understand that the Swiss Government has given a piece of land for the erection of a new International Labour Office, which is to be a rather palatial building, and all the nations who are members of the League of Nations are being invited to contribute to it. I would ask whether the Financial Secretary has looked into the terms of this so-called gift. I understand that it is a condition of that grant that the architect must be a Swiss architect, that all the materials must be bought in Switzerland, and that only Swiss workmen must be employed in the erection of the building. I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to consider before making that grant whether, as all nations are contributing to it, all nations should not be allowed to compete in the work of erecting what is going to be a memorial to labour.

Mr. VIVIAN PHILLIPPS: I understand the suggestion has been made that there has been some breach of faith on the part of those who sit with me in regard to an arrangement for the termination of business to-night. I wish to say most clearly and emphatically that, owing possibly to my unavoidable absence from the Chamber at the time, I have no knowledge, nor have my colleagues, of any arrangement, nor were we, in fact, directly approached by the Whips of the Government party in regard to the conclusion of business this evening. I wish to give my assurance that had we been approached and made any such arrangement, we should most faithfully have fulfilled any bargain we entered into.

Mr. STRANGER: I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to the private Members to raise a question which is most interesting to his own constituents and which has the most important bearing upon their lives. Mine happens to be an agricultural constituency which
I think more than any other in the Kingdom at present is suffering from the acute depression in agriculture generally. It is suggested by the Government that they are going to introduce Agricultural Wages Boards for the benefit of the agricultural worker, and, of course, it is a fact that if the Agricultural Wages Boards settle a fair wage the agricultural worker is going to benefit very considerably, provided always that there can be an assurance that he is going to be kept at work. At present, farmers in many parts of the country find the greatest difficulty, not in making a profit, but in saving themselves from losing money, and the danger to the worker is that the farmers will put their farms from corn into grass. The result of doing that will be a large dismissal of agricultural workers throughout the kingdom if the Agricultural Wages Boards work without any guarantee that the worker will be kept in employment. What will be the effect of that? There will be unemployment amongst farm labourers far more serious than at present. The farm labourers have no unemployment insurance. [An HON. MEMBER: "Whose fault is that?"] It is not my fault, at any rate. This being the first opportunity I have had of raising the matter, I want to urge on the Government the importance of including in the insurance scheme the insurance of the agricultural worker. I can see no reason why he should be treated differently from the artisan.

Mr. CLIMIE: Should I be in Order in asking the hon. Member if he is speaking for himself or his leaders?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think both hon. Members are out of Order. It is administrative and not legislative matters which are open on the Adjournment.

Mr. STRANGER: I am sure you will understand, Mr. Speaker, that I am a new Member, and it is quite unintentional if I have raised a matter not open on this Motion. I thought that I should have been in order, having regard to the proposed introduction of a scheme for agricultural workers, to make the suggestion which I have put forward. I want something to be done for the improvement of agriculture in this country. Nothing is being done at the present time as far as I know. I am afraid this will not be quite so popular with hon. Members on my left
—the farmers of this country should have credits to improve their position. We cannot expect to get from the farmers money to carry on their farms in the interest of the farm workers, unless, at least, they are guaranteed against absolute loss.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that can be done without legislation.

Mr. STRANGER: I will then deal with the question of railway rates. My constituents suffer, from the fact that the rates for the carriage of goods from my constituency, South Berks, to London are very high. At the present time you have to pay a higher figure for the carriage of goods from a district which is only 50 or 60 miles distant from London than for the carriage of the same class of goods from Continental ports to London.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now anticipating a Motion which stands on the Order Paper for the 7th of March.

Mr. STRANGER: There is another question to which I should like to draw attention, and that is the position of the ex-service men who are suffering through a difficulty in getting their pensions dealt with by the Government Department. I, and other Members of this House, have cases brought to our notice where ex-service men have been for weeks and months unable to get the question of their pensions dealt with by the Government Department. Again, the way in which, constantly, examinations and reexaminations of the disabled go on is a great burden upon and injustice to many who are ex-service men. I had a case brought to my notice the other day of a man who had been before a medical board six times in the past 14 months. He had, first of all, been classed as permanently disabled; he was injured with gunshot wound in both hands. Then he was reduced to 80 per cent. disablement, then to 70, then to 60, and afterwards he was put up to 70 per cent. and again to 80 per cent. The uncertainty in being brought from board to board in that way works Very much to his disadvantage. The Government should consider the granting of an award in cases of that kind, which would be permanent and not temporary.

Dr. CHAPPLE: Although a great number of subjects have been raised to-night, not one Minister has deigned to reply. The subjects have varied from electricity in London to land reclamation, Geneva and so forth, and it is terrible that Ministers are either unwilling or unable to reply. Some, fearing lest they should be called on to reply and being incapable of doing so, I have retired behind the Chair. I would like to take advantage of the fleeting moments to call attention to a very important fact. I do so because in many things the Labour party require education. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Liberals do not!"] Liberals also, but for the moment the Labour party is in the responsible position of administering the affairs of this country. The subject to which I should like to call attention is the relation of vaccination to small-pox. [Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter. There are one or two things of a very elementary kind as to which there is a great amount of ignorance prevailing, especially in the Labour party, and much nonsense is talked and much evil is done because they do not understand the elementary basis on which these great scientific truths stand. Everyone in the Labour party is cognisant of the fact that there are certain diseases of childhood which give immunity through the whole of life. Vaccination is a preventative against small-pox, and the administration of the Vaccination Acts to-day is a scandal of civilisation. There are certain diseases which once contracted give immunity for the rest of life. Measles is one. That is the great fundamental fact. [Laughter.] After all, I am trying to be serious, and you are trying to be stupid, and I find it less difficult to be serious than you do to be stupid. There is another disease which gives immunity—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member might wish to discuss the incidence of insanity, but we are here to discuss the administration of the Government, and not things in the air, and not to listen to a lecture.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I thought that I was in order in discussing something in relation to the administration of the Vaccination Acts. There are so many of the Labour party who think that vaccination in itself is an evil.

Mr. LANSBURY: How does the hon. Member know what the Labour party think? It does not follow that because the hon. Member is a doctor he knows everything.

Dr. CHAPPLE: Am I not in order in discussing the administration of the Vaccination Acts and in justifying the Vaccination Acts by showing how vaccination is a remedy for small-pox?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot deal with matters which require legislation

Dr. CHAPPLE: I want to show that the Ministry of Health is not enforcing the Vaccination Acts.

Mr. B. SMITH: Is it part of the duty of hon. Members to be subjected to a lecture on a number of matters with which they are thoroughly au fait?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am trying to keep the hon. Member to the point.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I want to establish the fact that vaccination is justifiable, that it is ignored and treated with contempt in the great centres of population, and that, in consequence, we are in daily dread of an epidemic of small-pox. Epidemics in different parts of the country are spreading because of the fact—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is attacking an Act of Parliament, and that
is not open to him on an occasion like this.

Dr. CHAPPLE: With respect, I am not attacking the Act but the administration of the Act. The Act requires that children should be vaccinated. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has quite forgotten the last Act that was passed.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I was about to make that qualification when I was interrupted from the Labour Benches. The exceptions are very largely abused. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are legal!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is again out of order, and I must ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. PENNY: I am very sorry to see the rift between the Members below the Gangway and their Labour confrères above the Gangway. I want to raise the question of the disqualification of guardians. I agree with the last speaker in expressing regret that the Minister of Health is not in his place.

Mr. SPEAKER: That, again, is a matter of legislation.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.